i^ 


^'■ 


>w«w«^\« 


i    J.  Tk^  ^"^-i  111 


UA 
23 


Southern  Branch 
of  t^e 

University  of  California 


Los  Angeles 


Form  L  1 

UA 
23 

-MP 


-        O      9*         ~0       / 


This  book  is 


/PR  4    ja^y 

MAY  1  3   1929 
NOV   2l  1929 

OEC  9       192i» 


^n^r 


tt*jii   jy[^^aj9{ 


""orm  L-9-15/n-8.'24 


LOS  ANGELES 
STATE  NORMAL  SCHOOf 


Photo  by  Marceau 


7   1 


DEFENSELESS 
AMERICA 


h 


BY 

HUDSON   MAXIM 


*'  The  quick-firing  gun  is  the  greatest 
life-saving  instrument  ever  invented.''^ 

Page  83. 


HEARST'S   INTERNATIONAL   LIBRARY   CO. 

NEW  YORK 


Copyright,  1915,  hj 
Hxabst'b  Imtxrnatiokal  Library  Co.,  Inc. 


JUl  rights  reserved,  including  that  of  translation  into  the 
foreign  languages,  including  the  Scandinavian 


?^ 

CIO  {3./ 

FOREWORD 


THIS  BOOK  IS  PRESENTED 

WITH    THE 

COMPLIMENTS  OF  THE  AUTHOR 

To  a  Few  Selected  Leaders  of  American  Thought 
and  Shapers  of  Public  Opinion 


Dear  Reader  f 

I  send  you  this  book  in  the  hope  that  if  not  al- 
ready convinced,  you  will  be  convinced  by  it  of  the 
defenseless  state  of  this  country — convinced  that 
our  danger  is  as  great  as  our  weakness.  I  hope 
that  you  may  be  moved  to  use  your  influence  that 
this  country  may,  by  adequate  preparation 
against  war,  safeguard  the  property,  honor  and 
lives  of  its  people  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Amer- 
ican home  from  violation  by  a  foreign  foe. 

If  you  are  already  convinced  of  our  great  need 
then  the  reading  of  this  book  may  still  strengthen 
your  conviction  and  stimulate  your  efforts  in  the 
cause  of  national  defense. 


FOREWORD 

After  you  have  read  the  hook,  kindly  lend  it  to 
your  friends,  that  they  also  may  read  it. 

Defenseless  America  was  published  a  year  ago 
at  two  dollars  per  copy.  Several  editions  of  the 
book  have  already  been  printed  and  sold. 

Soon  after  the  publication  of  the  work  I  pre- 
sented ten  thousand  copies,  with  my  compliments, 
to  students  graduating  in  American  universities. 
This  has  given  many  persons  the  impression  that 
Defenseless  America  is  a  book  for  free  distribu- 
tion. 

To  correct  such  an  impression,  let  me  say  most 
emphatically  that  this  book  is  not  free,  except  to 
a  few  persons  whom  I  have  selected,  and  to  whom 
I  have  sent  it  free  at  my  own  personal  expense, 
for  the  good  of  the  cause  of  national  defense. 

The  book  has  exerted  so  marked  an  influence 
in  rousing  the  people  of  this  country  to  their 
needs  for  defense  against  the  red  hell  of  war,  that 
the  publishers,  through  patriotic  duty,  have 
placed  the  good  it  is  doing  above  all  considera- 
tions of  profit  to  themselves,  and  have  supplied 
me  copies  of  this  edition  of  the  work  absolutely  at 
cost. 

The  publishers  have  also  put  an  edition  of  the 
book  on  sale,  of  which  this  copy  is  a  specimen,  at 
only  fifty  cents  a  copy.  In  order  to  enable  them 
to  do  this,  I  have  cut  out  all  royalties  on  sales 
wluch  they  may  make. 


FOREWORD 

This  edition  of  the  book  may  be  bought  of  or 
ordered  through  any  book  store  at  fifty  cents  a 
copy,  or  from  the  publishers,  Hearst's  Inter- 
national Library  Company,  119  West  40th  Street, 
New  York,  N.  Y.,  who  will  send  single  copies  of 
the  book  to  any  address  on  receipt  of  sixty  cents, 
or  they  will  send  ten  copies  of  the  book,  in  a  single 
package,  to  any  address  on  receipt  of  five  dol- 
lars— ^fif  ty  cents  a  copy. 

Copies  of  the  regular  library  edition,  printed  on 
superior  paper  and  bound  in  extra  cloth,  gold 
stamping,  may  be  obtained  from  booksellers  or 
direct  from  the  publishers  at  two  dollars  a  copy. 
Many  of  the  readers  of  this  book  have  already 
seen  that  wonderful  motion  picture  play,  "The 
Battle  Cry  of  Peace,"  founded  upon  it. 

Commodore  J.  Stuart  Blackton,  President  of 
the  Vitagraph  Company  of  America,  who  wrote 
the  scenario  of  "The  Battle  Cry  of  Peace",  has 
this  to  say  about  Defenseless  America : — 

"To  the  fearless  patriotism  of  Hudson 
Maxim  and  the  plain,  practical,  straightfor- 
ward truths  in  his  book,  'Defenseless  Amer- 
ica,' I  owe  the  inspiration  and  impetus  which 
caused  me  to  conceive  and  write  the  scenario 
of  'The  Battle  Cry  of  Peace.' 

' '  The  object  of  both  book  and  picture  is  to 
arouse  in  the  heart  of  every  American  citizen 
a  sense  of  his  strict  accountability  to  his 
government  in  time  of  need,  and  to  bring  to 


FOREWORD 

the  notice  of  the  greatest  number  of  people 
in  the  shortest  possible  time  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  way  to  insure  that  peace  for  which 
we  all  so  earnestly  pray.** 
Commodore  Blackton,  being  a  staunch  patriot 
and  a  man  with  phenomenal  vision  and  breadth  of 
understanding,  and  being  one  of  the  largest  pro- 
ducers of  motion  pictures  in  the  world,  saw  at 
once,  as  soon  as  he  read  Defenseless  America, 
that  the  best  way  to  impress  the  American  people 
with  the  message  of  the  book,  as  he  had  himself 
been  impressed  by  reading  it,  was  to  visualize 
that  message  in  a  great  motion  picture.    Then  the 
people  would  be  able  to  see,  with  their  own  eyes, 
those  terrible  things  happening  in  our  country 
and  in  our  very  homes,  which  are  happening 
abroad  and  which  are  surely  going  to  happen  to 
lis  if  we  do  not  prepare,  and  immediately  and 
adequately  prepare  to  save  the  country. 

Faithfully  yours, 

HUDSON  MAXIM. 


MAXIM  PARK. 
Landing  P.  O., 
NEW  JERSEY, 
1916 


PREFACE 

THE  main  object  of  this  book  is  to  present 
a  phalanx  of  facts  upon  the  subject  of  the 
defenseless  condition  of  this  country,  and 
to  show  what  must  be  done,  and  done  quickly,  in 
order  to  avert  the  most  dire  calamity  that  can  fall 
upon  a  people — that  of  merciless  invasion  by  a 
foreign  foe,  with  the  horrors  of  which  no  pesti- 
lence can  be  compared. 

"We  should  bring  a  lesser  calamity  upon  our- 
selves by  abolishing  our  quarantine  system  against 
the  importation  of  deadly  disease  and  inviting 
a  visitation  like  the  great  London  Plague,  or  by 
letting  in  the  Black  Death  to  sweep  our  country 
as  it  swept  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages,  than  by 
neglecting  our  quarantine  against  v/ar,  as  we  are 
neglecting  it,  thereby  inviting  the  pestilence  of 
invasion. 

Self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  Nature,  and 
this  law  applies  to  nations  exactly  as  it  applies 
to  individuals.  Our  American  Republic  cannot 
survive  unless  it  obeys  the  law  of  survival,  which 
all  individuals  must  obey,  which  all  nations  must 
obey,  and  which  all  other  nations  are  obeying. 
No  individual,  and  no  nation,  has  ever  disobeyed 

[v] 


PREFACE 

that  law  for  long  and  lived ;  and  it  is  too  big  a  task 
for  the  United  States  of  America. 

It  is  the  aim  of  this  work  to  discover  truth  to 
the  reader,  unvarnished  and  unembellished,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  as  far  as  possible,  to  avoid  per- 
sonalities. Wherever  practicable,  philosophic 
generalizations  have  been  tied  down  to  actu- 
alities, based  upon  experiential  knowledge  and 
innate  common-sense  of  the  eternal  fitness  of 
things. 

The  strong  appeal  of  Lord  Eoberts  for  the 
British  nation  to  prepare  for  the  Armageddon 
that  is  now  on,  which  he  knew  was  coming,  did 
not  awaken  England,  but  served  rather  to  rouse 
Germany. 

Admiral  Mahan  pleaded  long  with  his  country 
for  an  adequate  navy.  All  the  Great  Powers  of  the 
world  except  America  were  stimulated  by  his  logic 
to  strengthen  their  navies.  The  beautiful,  imagi- 
native, logical  language  of  General  Homer  Lea, 
on  America's  military  weakness,  in  his  *' Valor 
of  Ignorance"  and  "The  Day  of  the  Saxon,"  has 
caused  many  a  gun  to  be  made,  many  a  battalion 
of  troops  to  be  enlisted,  and  many  a  warship  to 
be  built — in  foreign  countries. 

The  eloquent  words  of  wisdom  of  Lord  Roberts, 
Admiral  Mahan,  Homer  Lea,  and  all  real  friends 
of  peace  and  advocates  of  the  only  way  of  main- 
taining peace — by  being  prepared  against  war — 
have  fallen  on  a  deaf  America.    I  am  well  aware 

[vi] 


PREFACE 

of  the  fact  that  nothing  I  can  say  will  rouse  the 
people  of  my  country  to  the  reality  and  magni- 
tude of  their  danger,  and  to  a  true  appreciation 
of  the  imperative  necessity  for  immediate  prepa- 
ration against  war. 

Possibly  this  book  may  lessen  a  little  the  effect 
of  the  pernicious  propagandism  of  the  pacifists — 
may  somewhat  help  Congressional  appropriations 
for  defense — may  place  a  few  more  men  and  a 
few  more  guns  on  the  firing-line,  and  thereby  save 
the  lives  of  a  few  of  our  people — may  save  a  few 
homes  from  the  torch — ^may  lessen  the  area  of 
devastation — may,  by  adding  a  little  power  to  our 
resistance,  help  to  get  slightly  better  terms  from 
the  conquerors  for  our  liberation. 

Pacifism  has  ringed  the  nose  of  the  American 
people  and  is  leading  them,  blind  and  unknowing, 
to  the  slaughter.  War  is  inevitable.  It  matters 
not  that,  if  this  country  could  be  roused,  it  might 
be  saved.  When  it  is  impossible  to  vitalize  the 
impulse  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  a 
thing,  that  thing  is  impossible.  So,  I  say,  war  is 
inevitable  and  imminent. 

The  American  people  could  not  now  be  roused 
sufficiently  to  avert  the  impending  calamity  even 
by  a  call  that  would  rift  the  sky  and  shake  down 
the  stars  from  heaven! 

Fate  has  decreed  that  our  pride  shall  be  hum- 
bled, and  that  we  shall  be  bowed  to  the  dirt.  We 
must  first  put  on  sackcloth,  ashed  in  the  embers 

tvii] 


PREFACE 

of  our  burning  homes.  Perhaps,  when  we  build 
anew  on  the  fire-blackened  desolation,  our  mood 
may  be  receptive  of  the  knowledge  that  we  must 
shield  our  homes  with  blood  and  brawn  and 
iron. 

Hudson  Maxim. 

Maxim  Park, 

Landing  P.  0., 
New  Jersey. 

March,  1915. 


[viii] 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTBB  Txem 

Preface     ......       .  v 

Introduction.    Our  Great  Obsession  xiii 

I    Dangerous  Preachments     ...  1 

n    Can  Law  be  Substituted  for  War?  .  22 

in    Our  Inconsistent  Monroe  Doctrine  .  56 

IV    Modern  Methods  and  Machinery  of 

War       .......  68 

V    The  Needs  of  Our  Army     .       .       .  113 
(With  Letter  from  General  Leon- 
ard Wood) 

yi    The  Needs  of  Our  Navy     ..      -..      .  141 

Vn    Language  of  the  Big  Guns  .       .       .  181 

Vni    Aerial  Warfare 203 

IX    Our  Armaments  not  a  Burden  .       .  222 
X    Ego-Fanatic   Good   Intentions   and 
Their  Eelation  to  National  De- 
fense       235 

XI    A  Dangerous  Criminal  Class?  .       .  247 
Xn    The  Good  and  Evil  of  Peace  and  of 

War 265 

Conclusion.    What  Shall  the  End 

Be? 306 

Index     .       .      •      «      •      ^      •      .       .  309 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

Portrait  of  Author Frontispiece 


PACINa 
PAOK 


The  Vast  Territory  that  Our  Inflated  Monroe  Doc- 
trine Obligates  Us  to  Defend  ....  60 

The  Heart  of  America 76 

Relative  Numerical  Strength  of  Field  Artillery  .  104 

Portrait  of  General  Leonard  Wood,  U.  S.  A.  .  114 
Number  of  Officers  and  Enlisted  Men  of  U.  S. 

Regular  Army 118 

•Strength  of  Regular  Armies  on  Peace  Footing  .  124 

Portrait  of  Admiral  Austin  M.  Knight,  U.  S.  N.  150 

Strategic   Spheres   of   Vital   Importance   in  the 

Pacific 160 

-^  Battleship  Strength  of  the  Nations        .       .       .168 
How  New  York  Could  Be  Bombarded  from  a  Posi- 
tion off  Rockaway  Beach  Beyond  the  Range 

of  Our  Forts 188 

Opposing  Fleets  in  Action  .  between  197  and  198 
Some  Annual  United  States  Expenditures  .  .  226 
Enormous  Resources  of  the  Warring  Nations  .  232 
Casualties  of  Peace  and  War  Compared       .       .    296) 


INTRODUCTION 
OUR  GREAT  OBSESSION 

SUCCESS  in  every  human  pursuit  depends 
upon  ability  to  discern  the  truth  and  to 
utilize  it.  Facts,  though  they  may  be  stern, 
are  our  best  friends,  and  we  should  always  wel- 
come them  with  an  open  mind. 

Napoleon  said  that  with  good  news  there  is 
never  any  hurry,  but  with  bad  news  not  a  moment 
is  to  be  lost.  Consequently,  those  who  discover 
to  us  certain  facts  of  serious  concern  are  our 
friends,  even  though  it  may  be  bad  news.  It  is 
every  man's  duty,  not  only  to  himself,  but  also  to 
those  dear  to  him,  to  know  the  truth  about  any- 
thing which  may  menace  his  and  their  welfare, 
in  order  that  he  and  they  may  become  awakened 
to  the  danger  and  prepare  for  it  accordingly. 

Those  who  deceive  us  by  warning  us  of  danger 
when  there  is  no  danger  may  not  do  us  any  harm  ;' 
in  fact,  they  may  even  do  us  good  by  cultivating 
our  alertness  and  awareness.  The  hare  may 
jump  at  a  thousand  false  alarms  to  every  one  of 
actual  danger;  but  it  is  the  false  alarms  that 
have  given  him  the  alertness  to  save  himself  when 
real  danger  comes.    On  the  other  hand,  those  who 

[xiii] 


INTRODUCTION 

convince  us  that  there  is  no  danger  when  there 
is  great  danger  are  the  worst  of  enemies;  they 
expose  us,  naked  of  defense,  to  the  armed  and 
armored  enemy. 

Among  the  great  deceivers  with  whom  the  hu- 
man race  has  to  contend  is  the  confidence  man, 
for  he  plays  upon  the  fears,  vanity,  and  credulity 
of  his  victim  with  the  skill  of  a  Kubelik  upon  the 
violin.  He  enlists  his  victim  with  him,  and  they 
work  together  to  the  same  end.  No  man  is  greatly 
deceived  by  another  except  through  his  own  co- 
operation. Every  one  has  his  pet  egoistic  illu- 
sion always  under  the  spotlight  of  self -view;  to 
him,  his  own  importance  is  a  veritable  obsession. 

A  nation  is  only  a  compound  of  individuals,  and 
what  is  true  of  an  individual  also  holds  true  of 
any  aggregation  of  individuals. 

"We,  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
are  at  this  moment,  and  have  been  for  many  years, 
afflicted  with  a  dominating  egoistic  obsession  con- 
cerning our  greatness,  our  importance,  and  our 
power,  while  we  correspondingly  underrate  the 
greatness,  the  importance,  and  the  power  of  other 
nations  and  races.  Our  accomplishments  have  in- 
deed been  marvelous,  and  we  have  not  neglected 
to  award  them  all  the  marveling  that  is  their  due. 

There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  in  many 
competitive  pursuits  requiring  intellectual  acute- 
ness  for  the  greatening  of  material  welfare  we 
have  outstripped  the  rest  of  the  world.    But  the 

[xiv] 


INTRODUCTION 

rest  of  the  world  has  been  busy,  too,  and  though 
we  may  possibly  deserve  more  credit  for  our  ac- 
complishments in  the  aggregate  than  any  other 
people,  still,  others  have  far  outdone  us  in  many 
important  respects. 

Our  hitherto  isolated  and  unassailable  geo- 
graphical position  has  enabled  us  to  utilize  our 
unequaled  resources  to  become  the  greatest  indus- 
trial and  the  wealthiest  people  in  the  world. 

We  have  not  been  obliged  to  concern  ourselves 
very  much  thus  far  with  measures  for  national 
security,  and  having  at  home  all  the  land  we 
needed,  we  have  acquired  the  habit  of  looking 
upon  national  armaments  in  the  light  of  frills, 
which  we  must  maintain  merely  for  national  re- 
spectability. Many  of  us  look  upon  our  Navy 
as  dress-parade  paraphernalia,  to  be  worn  on 
gala  occasions. 

Our  response  to  the  advocacy  of  a  sufficient 
navy,  of  coast  fortifications,  and  of  a  standing 
army  adequate  to  our  needs,  has  been  that  we 
have  no  use  for  either  army  or  navy,  and  that 
coast  fortifications  would  be  a  useless  expense. 

Our  enormous  wealth  and  inexhaustible  re- 
sources have  been  and  still  are  pointed  out  as 
reasons  why  we  require  no  armaments,  although, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  the  strongest  pos- 
sible reasons  for  armaments  of  a  magnitude  pro- 
portionate to  that  wealth  and  those  resources. 

In  America,  we  pride  ourselves  upon  our  so- 

[XV] 


INTRODUCTION 

called  free  institutions,  blindly  believing  that  they 
are  free,  and  that,  therefore,  every  man  being  an 
aristocrat,  we,  by  consequence,  have  no  aristoc- 
racy, entirely  oblivious  to  the  fact  that  we  have 
merely  substituted  the  esteem  of  wealth,  and  the 
power  and  the  privilege  which  it  represents,  for 
the  esteem  of  family  worth  and  family  name,  and 
the  power  and  the  privilege  which  they  represent. 

Isolation  and  wealth  beget  vanity  and  arro- 
gance; and  vanity,  resting  upon  the  laurels  of 
past  accomplishments,  rapidly  fosters  decadence 
and  weakness ;  so  that  the  very  pride  of  strength 
and  virility  begets  weakness  and  effeminacy. 

It  has  been  said  that  usually  there  are  but  three 
generations  between  shirt-sleeves  and  shirt- 
sleeves. The  old  man  trades  upon  the  name  made 
in  the  days  of  his  younger  strength,  and  the  son, 
seldom  possessing  the  strength  of  the  father, 
trades  on  the  father's  name,  while  the  third  gen- 
eration generally  gets  back  to  shirt-sleeves  again. 
Although  this  statement  is  not  a  general  truth,  it 
has  truth  enough  to  excuse  it. 

The  main  reason  why  luxury  and  opulence  lead 
to  degeneracy,  weakness,  and  effeminacy,  is  that 
those  who  live  on  Easy  Street,  being  relieved  of 
the  intense  strife  necessary  to  gain  a  livelihood 
and  to  climb  to  positions  of  opulence  and  power, 
suffer  from  weakness  and  decay,  and  finally  find 
their  way  down  to  shirt-sleeves,  at  the  foot  of  the 
economic    and  social  ladder,  either  to  be  sub- 

[xvi] 


INTRODUCTION 

merged  in  hoboism,  or  to  make  the  climb  of  old 
progenitors  over  again. 

What  is  true  of  individuals  and  families  in  this 
respect  holds  true  also  of  nations,  only  it  takes 
a  little  longer  time,  starting  from  shirt-sleeves,  to 
get  back  to  shirt-sleeves  again. 

We  Americans  were  taught  by  the  promoters 
of  the  American  Revolution — in  short,  by  the  fa- 
thers of  our  country — that  all  men  are  created 
equal  in  respect  to  privilege,  and  that  no  class 
distinction  and  no  class  privilege  were  worthy  of 
honor  unless  earned.  By  consequence,  the  sym- 
bol and  the  badge  of  our  class  distinction  became 
the  dollar. 

Taught  to  despise  aristocracy,  we  immediately 
created  for  ourselves  a  new  aristocracy  in  the 
shape  of  a  plutocracy.  This  aristocracy  of  wealth 
was  fast  becoming  as  tyrannical  and  unbearable 
and  as  much  a  menace  to  the  freedom  of  the  peo- 
ple as  the  old  aristocracy  which  it  had  replaced. 
The  old  aristocracy  had  been  established  by  the 
right  of  the  sword ;  the  new  aristocracy  had  been 
established  by  the  purchasing  power  of  the  dol- 
lar, and  the  people  learned  that  combinations  of 
wealth  were  a  compelling  power  as  great  as  the 
combination  of  armies,  and  that  a  government 
dominated  by  the  dollar  might  become  as  intoler- 
able as  any  form  of  absolutism. 

Then  there  came  another  American  revolution, 
led  by  the  labor  unions,  which  proved  that  it  la 

[xvii  ] 


INTRODUCTION 

only  necessary  for  the  people  to  organize,  in  order 
to  conquer  with  the  short-sword  of  the  ballot  as 
effectually  as  with  the  sword  of  steel. 

Unhappily,  just  as  intolerance  and  avarice  have 
always  led  conquerors  to  be  overgrasping  and 
tyrannical,  so  have  intolerance  and  avarice  made 
prosecutions  under  the  Sherman  Law  veritable 
persecutions.  Now  that  the  common  people  have 
found  their  power,  nothing  under  heaven  can  halt 
them,  or  prevent  them  from  abusing  that  power, 
except  a  higher  education  of  the  common  people 
and  their  leaders,  compelling  them  to  understand 
the  great  truth  that  the  people  of  a  nation  must 
co-operate  with  a  patriotism  that  shall  emulate 
the  spirit  of  the  hive  of  bees  so  admirably  inter- 
preted by  Maeterlinck. 

Nevertheless,  we  must  remember  that,  while  we 
may  with  advantage  imitate  the  bee  in  this  re- 
spect, the  bee  does  not  progress.  There  has  been 
no  enlightenment  in  bee-life  for  a  hundred  thou- 
sand years,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  bees 
are  dominated  by  that  beautiful  spirit  of  the 
hive. 

"We  owe  our  ability  to  progress  and  to  become 
more  and  more  highly  intelligent  and  enlightened, 
to  the  existence  of  that  instability  and  heterogene- 
ity which  stimulate  and  develop  us  by  causing  us 
to  strive  for  stability  and  homogeneity. 

Life  is  a  series  of  reactions  between  the  indi- 
vidual and  environing  stimuli.  For  this  reason, 
[  xviii] 


INTRODUCTION 

stem  and  exacting  stimuli  are  required  to  de- 
velop a  man  to  the  full.  In  all  the  ages  during 
which  the  race  has  been  developing  there  have 
existed  formative  influences  of  the  sternest  and 
most  exacting  kind;  so  that,  just  as  our  ears  are- 
constituted  to  hear  only  a  certain  character  of 
sounds,  and  sounds  of  a  limited  pitch,  duration, 
and  loudness,  and  are  deaf  to  all  other  sounds, 
so  are  we  constituted  to  react  only  to  certain 
environing  stimuli,  and  to  react  with  each  stimulus 
in  a  certain  definite  measure,  and  only  in  a  cer- 
tain definite  measure.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to 
react  supremely,  or  to  be  developed  supremely, 
by  mediocre  stimuli,  but  we  must  have  supreme 
stimuli,  and  in  order  to  get  those  stimuli,  there 
must  be  a  prompting  to  activity  that  demands  of 
a  man  every  ounce  of  his  strength;  and  every- 
thing that  is  dear  to  him  must  be  staked  to  bring 
out  and  develop  all  the  latent,  larger  energies 
that  are  in  him. 

.  Nothing  that  can  be  said  and  done  by  all  the 
friends  of  national  defense  will  make  this  coun- 
try take  adequate  measures  for  its  defense.  Noth- 
ing but  a  disastrous  war  will  supply  the  necessary 
stimulus.  In  all  the  history  of  the  world,  this 
truth  has  been  made  manifest — that  no  nation 
can  be  made  adequately  to  prepare  against  war, 
no  matter  what  the  menace  may  be,  without  either 
suffering  actual  defeat,  or  being  so  embroiled  in 
war  as  to  realize  the  necessity  for  preparedness. 

[xix] 


INTRODUCTION 

This  country  must  first  be  whipped  in  order  to 
prepare  sufficiently  to  prevent  being  whipped. 
Therefore,  our  business  at  the  present  time  is  to 
pick  our  conquerors.  I  choose  England.  I  would 
much  rather  see  the  red-coat  in  the  streets  of  New 
York  than  the  spiked  helmet.  I  would  much 
rather  see  the  genial  face  of  the  British  Tommy 
Atkins  than  the  stern  mystery  of  the  Japanese 
face. 

If  England  does  not  give  us  a  good,  timely 
whipping,  we  are  going  to  be  whipped  by  Ger- 
many or  Japan,  and  the  humiliation  will  be  more 
than  is  really  needed  to  stimulate  us  for  adequate 
preparation. 

When  the  present  war  is  over,  the  precipitation 
of  a  war  with  England  may  not  depend  on  what 
England  will  choose  to  do,  but  it  may  depend  on 
what  we  shall  choose  to  do.  We  have  been  a  lamb 
rampant  for  a  long  time  in  a  jungle  alive  with 
lions,  and  we  have  owed  our  security  to  the  fact 
that  the  lions  have  been  watching  one  another, 
and  have  not  dared  to  avert  their  eyes  long  enough 
to  devour  us.  If  we  did  not  have  a  grandiose 
sense  of  our  importance  and  power,  we  should  not 
need  a  whipping  in  order  to  prepare  against  war, 
but  so  long  as  we  believe  that  we  can  beat  all 
creation  without  any  preparation,  we  are  going 
to  act  just  as  though  it  were  true,  and  England, 
although  she  may  be  friendly,  may  be  forced,  by 
our  inconsiderate  bluff  and  arrogance,  to  declare 

[XX] 


INTRODUCTION 

war  on  us.  Much  better  England  than  any  other 
country.  England  now  has  no  territorial  aspira- 
tions that  would  make  her  want  to  annex  some  of 
our  land.  She  would  be  satisfied  with  a  good  big 
indemnity,  which  we  could  well  afford  to  pay  for 
the  benefit  we  should  gain  from  the  war.  If  Eng- 
land will  merely  come  over  seas,  and  whip  us,  and 
tax  us  for  the  trouble,  and  thereby  lead  us  to  pre- 
pare adequately  to  defend  ourselves  against  less 
friendly  nations,  she  will  do  us  the  greatest  pos- 
sible good. 

'  We  are  living  and  working  not  alone  for  our- 
selves, but  also  for  those  who  are  our  own,  and  f of 
all  others  insomuch  as  their  interests  and  their 
welfare  are  in  common  with  our  own. 

Our  welfare  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  aggregate 
welfare  of  all  those  for  whom  we  are  working,  and 
our  welfare  and  their  welfare  are  not  only  a  con- 
dition of  the  present,  but  are  also  a  condition  of 
the  future.  The  welfare  of  our  children  and  our 
children's  children,  and  of  those  whose  interests 
will  be  in  common  with  theirs,  is  part  and  parcel 
of  our  own  present  welfare.  This  is  the  true 
philosophy  by  which  we  who  are  sane  and  con- 
scientious are  guided.  Upon  such  philosophy  are 
based  all  economics  and  all  prudence. 

The  false  philosophy  of  the  selfish  and  the  sen- 
sual, the  spendthrift  and  the  debauchee,  is  the 
philosophy  of  such  as  they  whose  acts  of  omission 
and  commission  brought  on  the  French  Revolu- 

[xxi] 


INTRODUCTION 

tion,  and  who  said,  *'Apres  nous  le  deluge";  but 
such  should  not  be  our  philosophy. 

Therefore,  if  now  there  be  a  calamity  in  the 
making,  which  we  are  able  to  foresee  must  surely 
descend  upon  the  heads  of  our  children,  even  if  it 
does  not  come  soon  enough  to  fall  upon  our  own 
heads,  it  is  a  thing  that  should  awaken  our  con- 
cern and  stimulate  our  inquiry,  and  lead  us  to 
seek  ways  and  means  for  averting  it. 

It  is  a  fact,  which  I  absolutely  know  as  cer- 
tainly as  anything  can  be  known  in  human  affairs, 
that  we,  and  all  of  those  who  are  near  and  dear 
to  us,  are  sitting  today  on  a  powder  magazine 
with  the  train  lighted,  and  it  is  only  a  question 
of  the  slowness,  or  quickness,  of  the  fuse  when  the 
time  shall  arrive  for  the  explosion. 

The  laws  that  govern  human  events  are  as 
mathematically  accurate  and  as  immutable  as  the 
laws  that  govern  the  motions  of  the  heavenly 
bodies;  the  laws  that  govern  human  reactions — 
the  reactions  between  men  and  men,  communities 
and  communities,  nations  and  nations — are  as  im- 
mutable and  are  governed  as  exactly  by  the  laws 
of  cause  and  effect  as  are  chemical  reactions. 
Nothing  can  happen  without  a  cause,  and  there 
can  be  no  cause  that  does  not  make  something 
happen.  Every  event  is  the  child  of  its  parents — 
cause  and  effect. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  parentage  of  the  cause 
and  effect  whose  progeny  are  soon  to  bring  upon 

[xxii] 


INTRODUCTION 

us  the  great  red  peril  of  war,  and,  finding  us  un- 
prepared, will  treat  us  as  Germany  has  treated 
Belgium.  We  are  rich — our  country  from  one 
end  to  the  other  possesses  a  vast  wealth  of  en- 
ticements to  the  invasion  of  a  foreign  foe — and  we 
are  defenseless.  These  conditions  are  the  parents 
of  vast  impending  calamities. 

Europe,  today,  is  involved  in  the  greatest  war  in 
the  history  of  mankind,  and — ^in  spite  of  aU  the 
saving  grace  of  our  so-called  modem  civilization, 
in  spite  of  all  the  mercifulness  of  the  Christian 
religion,  in  spite  of  all  the  charitable  kindness  of 
the  Bed  Cross — the  sum  of  brutality,  savagery, 
and  misery  of  this  war  is  certainly  not  much  less 
than  it  has  been  at  any  other  time  in  the  history 
of  a  striving  world,  every  page  of  which  has 
been  written  with  blood. 

"We  have  arrived  at  a  time  when  we  must  decide 
whether  or  not  our  safety  can  be  better  secured 
and  peace  maintained  with  armaments  or  without 
armaments. 


[xxiii] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

CHAPTER  I 
DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

**  There  will  be  no  war  in  the  future,  for  it  has  become  iai- 
possible  now  that  it  is  clear  that  war  means  suicide." 

/.  B.  Block,  "The  Future  of  War,"  1899. 

"  What  shaU  we  say  of  the  Great  War  of  Europe  ever  threaten- 
ing, ever  impending,  and  which  never  comes?  We  shall  say  that 
it  will  never  come.    Humanly  speeJ^ing,  it  is  impossible." 

Dr.  David  Btarr  Jordan,  "  War  and  Waste,"  1913. 

THEY  who  are  loudest  in  their  vociferations 
about  the  calamities  that  the  warring  na- 
tions of  Europe  have  brought  upon  them- 
selves are  those  peace-palavering  persons  who 
have  been  telling  us  all  along,  during  the  past 
twenty-five  years,  that  human  nature  had  im- 
proved so  much  lately,  and  the  spirit  of  interna- 
tional brotherhood  had  become  so  dominant,  that 
the  fighting  spirit  was  nearly  dead  in  the  souls  of 
men. 

The  peace  praters  have  assured  us  from  time 
to  time  that  the  last  great  war  of  the  world  had 
been  fought;  they  have  told  us  that  no  great  na- 
tions would  dare  to  go  to  war  any  more,  because 

[1] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

war  between  any  of  the  Great  Powers  would  now 
mean  bankruptcy  and  national  suicide ;  they  have 
assured  us  that  all  international  differences 
would  hereafter  be  settled  by  jurisprudential  pro- 
cedure, and  that  law  would  be  substituted  for 
war. 

About  fifteen  years  ago,  a  M.  de  Bloch 
*'  proved  "  in  his  book,  entitled  **  The  Future  of 
"War.  Is  War  Now  Possible?  "  that  war  had  be- 
come so  deadly  and  destructive,  and,  above  all,  so 
expensive,  as  to  be  impossible.  So  impressed  was 
the  Czar  of  Eussia  with  de  Bloch 's  arguments  that 
he  called  a  conference  of  the  nations  to  consider 
disarmament.  Since  that  time  a  thousand  dif- 
ferent persons  have,  in  a  thousand  different  ways, 
**  proved  "  to  us  that  war  on  a  large  scale  was  not 
only  impossible,  but  also  absolutely  unthinkable. 
Droll,  isn't  it,  that  the  nations  keep  right  on  fight- 
ing? We  are  consoled,  however,  by  the  insistence 
of  the  peace  prophets  that  this  war  is  truly  the 
last  great  war.  We  are  assured  that  this  war 
will  be  the  death  of  militarism,  and  then  the  lamb 
can  safely  cuddle  up  to  the  lion.  Consequently, 
we  have  been  told  that,  war  on  a  large  scale  being 
now  impossible,  the  United  States  needs  no  army 
and  no  navy,  and  that  it  would  be  folly  to  waste  the 
taxpayers'  money  on  such  useless  things. 

Many  believe  that  this  country  should  set  the 
other  nations  of  the  world  a  great  moral  example 
by  pulling  the  teeth  of  our  dogs  of  war,  making 

[2] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

them  lambs,  and  inviting  the  lions  to  lie  down 
with  them,  unheedful  of  the  lesson  of  all  ages 
that  when  the  lion  does  lie  down  with  the  lamb,  the 
lamb  is  always  inside  the  lion. 

Furthermore,  we  have  been  assured  that  the 
mere  possession  of  armaments  leads  a  nation  to 
wage  war,  because  being  able  to  fight  makes  one 
want  to  fight ;  and  that,  obviously,  the  best  way  to 
avoid  a  fight  is  to  be  unable  to  fight. 

I  quote  the  following  from  Theodore  Roosevelt's 
book,  "  America  and  the  World  War  '*: — 

*' These  peace  people  have  persistently  and 
resolutely  blinked  facts.  One  of  the  peace  con- 
gresses sat  in  New  York  at  the  very  time  that  the 
feeling  in  California  about  the  Japanese  ques- 
Hon  gravely  threatened  the  good  relations  between 
ourselves  and  the  great  empire  of  Japan.  The 
only  thing  which  at  the  moment  could  practically 
be  done  for  the  cause  of  peace  was  to  secure  some 
proper  solution  of  the  question  at  issue  between 
ourselves  and  Japan.  But  this  represented  real 
effort,  real  thought.  The  peace  congress  paid 
not  the  slightest  serious  attention  to  the  matter 
and  instead  devoted  itself  to  listening  to  speeches 
which  favored  the  abolition  of  the  United  States 
navy  and  even  in  one  case  the  prohibiting  the  use 
of  tin  soldiers  in  nurseries  because  of  the  mili- 
taristic effect  on  the  minds  of  the  little  boys  and 
girls  who  played  with  them!  " 

[3] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

When  the  prophet  Isaiah  told  the  Jews  that 
there  were  big  troubles  brewing  for  them  in  the 
East,  he  spoke  to  unhearing  ears,  because  un- 
willing ears.  There  were  in  those  days,  as 
in  our  day,  the  false  prophets  of  peace  who 
said  that  Isaiah  was  wrong;  that  there  was  no 
cause  for  worry  about  the  indignation  of  Jehovah; 
that  even  at  the  worst  His  wrath  could  be  ap- 
peased at  any  time,  as  necessity  might  arise,  by 
a  few  burnt  offerings  and  sacrificial  mumblings. 
Their  assurances  were  more  pleasing  than  the 
warnings  of  Isaiah,  so  the  Jews  listened  to  the 
false  prophets  instead  of  to  Isaiah,  and  they  paid 
the  penalty  in  Babylonian  bondage. 

The  Isaiahs  of  true  prophecy  have  long  warned 
the  people  of  this  country  that  there  is  big  trou- 
ble brewing  for  us  in  the'  East  and  in  the  Far 
East,  and  that  we  need  armaments  and  men 
trained  to  arms  to  safeguard  us  against  that 
trouble.  These  Isaiahs  have  told  us  that  we  can- 
not safeguard  ourselves  by  any  sacrifices  made 
upon  the  altar  of  international  brotherhood,  or 
forefend  ourselves  against  the  great  red  peril  of 
war  by  a  few  mumblings  written  down  in  arbitra- 
tion treaties ;  but  that  we  must  have  guns  and  men 
behind  the  guns.  The  Isaiahs  who  have  been 
telling  us  these  things  are  our  true  peace- 
advocates. 

Those  self-styled  peace-men  who  are  telling  us 
that  the  best  way  to  avoid  war  is  to  be  unable  tQ 

[4] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

defend  ourselves  are  not  peace-men,  but  war- 
breeders.  Though  they  emulate  the  dove  in  their 
cooing,  they  are  far  from  being  doves  of  peace. 
They  ought  to  be  styled  dubs  of  peace.  Their  in- 
tentions may  be  good,  yet  they  are  enemies  of 
peace,  and  betrayers  of  their  country.  Those  who 
prevent  the  building  of  coast  fortifications,  which 
are  our  modern  city  gates,  by  advising  against 
them,  betray  their  country  as  actually  as  those 
who  opened  the  gates  of  Home  to  the  hordes  of 
Alaric. 

Those  who  are  trying  to  defeat  our  Congres- 
sional appropriations  for  a  larger  navy,  for  an 
adequate  army,  and  for  sufficient  coast  fortifica- 
tions, although  they  may  mean  well,  are  as  truly 
enemies  of  their  country  as  if  they  should,  in  war, 
contribute  to  the  armament  and  fighting  force  of 
an  enemy,  for  the  effect  in  both  cases  is  identical. 

Again  I  quote  from  Mr.  Eoosevelt: 

"TFe  ohject  to  the  actions  of  those  who  'do  most 
talking  about  the  necessity  of  peace  because  we 
think  they  are  really  a  menace  to  the  just  and 
honorable  peace  which  alone  this  country  will  in 
the  long  run  support.  We  object  to  their  actions 
because  we  believe  they  represent  a  course  of  con- 
duct which  may  at  any  time  produce  a  war  in 
which  we  and  not  they  would  labor  and  suffer. 

*'In  such  a  ivar  the  prime  fact  to  be  remembered 
is  that  the  men  really  responsible  for  it  would  not 

[51 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

be  those  who  would  pay  the  penalty.  The  ultra- 
pacifists  are  rarely  men  who  go  to  battle.  Their 
fault  or  their  folly  would  be  expiated  by  the  blood 
of  countless  thousands  of  plain  and  decent  Ameri- 
can citizens  of  the  stamp  of  those,  North  and 
South  alike,  who  in  the  Civil  War  laid  down  all 
they  had,  including  life  itself,  in  battling  for  the 
right  as  it  wa&  given  to  them  to  see  the  right.** 

But  the  false  prophets  of  peace  have  assured 
US  all  along  tha\  there  is  no  danger  whatever  of 
war  between  the  United  States  and  any  other 
country.  They  tell  us  further  that  our  arma- 
ments are  a  menace  to  other  nations;  that  they 
evidence  suspicion  of  other  nations,  and  thereby 
place  us  under  suspicion.  According  to  such 
philosophy,  the  college  man  who  becomes  an  ath- 
lete is  a  trouble-breeder,  for  the  reason  that  the 
mere  possession  of  muscle  makes  him  a  menace 
to  other  men. 

Now,  if  we  are  in  any  danger  of  war,  we  ought 
to  do  the  right  thing  to  secure  the  safety  of  our 
country,  of  our  homes  and  our  families,  and  all 
things  that  are  dear  to  us. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  possession  of  armaments 
is  an  inducement  for  those  who  have  them  to  use 
them,  and  if  it  be  true  that  armaments  fret  the 
fighting  spirit  of  other  nations  as  a  red  rag  frets 
a  bull,  and  thereby  lead  to  war,  then,  surely, 
we  do  not  need  more  armaments,  but  less.    In- 

[6] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

stead  of  arming  ourselves  any  more,  we  should 
disarm  until  we  are  defenseless  enough  to  be  per- 
fectly safe.  On  the  other  hand,  if  there  be  any 
likelihood  that  this  country  may  be  invaded  by 
a  foreign  foe,  we  should  be  prepared  to  meet  the 
invaders  in  the  right  way,  and  with  the  right 
spirit. 

If  it  be  the  proper  way  to  go  and  meet  them  as 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  went  out  to  meet 
Alexander,  with  the  keys  to  our  gates,  and  with 
presents  and  sacrificial  offerings,  then  we  should 
adopt  that  way  of  preparing  to  pave  their  path 
with  flowers  and  make  them  drunk  on  grape- juice 
and  the  milk  of  human  kindness. 

Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan  believes  in  disarma- 
ment. He  further  believes  that  armor-plate,  guns, 
battleships,  and  ammunition  should  not  be  made 
by  private  manufacturers,  but  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, these  things  should  be  made  exclusively 
by  the  government,  for  he  is  of  the  opinion  that 
manufacturers  of  war  materials  foment  disorder 
and  promote  war  in  order  to  bring  themselves 
more  business. 

Long  association  with  the  manufacturers  of 
war  materials,  especially  of  explosive  materials, 
has  enabled  me  to  know  whereof  I  speak,  and  I 
do  know  that  such  a  belief  is  the  utterest  nonsense. 
The  manufacturers  of  war  materials  with  whom  I 
am  acquainted  are  among  the  staunchest  of  peace 
men,  and  they  would  no  more  be  guilty  of  promot- 

[7] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

ing  war  to  bring  themselves  business  than  a  rep- 
utable surgeon  would  be  likely  to  string  a  cord 
across  the  street  to  trip  up  pedestrians  and  break 
their  limbs  in  order  to  bring  himself  business. 

In  the  treatment  of  human  physical  ailments, 
we  should  deem  it  folly  to  confound  remedy  with 
disease,  and  to  hold  the  physician  responsible  for 
pestilence.  No  one  would  think  of  looking  upon 
oui'  science  of  sanitation  and  our  quarantine  sys- 
tem as  breeders  and  harbingers  of  pestilence,  and 
no  one  would  think  that  our  laws  against  crime 
and  our  system  of  police  protection  tend  to  foster 
crime.  Yet  such  is  the  attitude  of  many  well- 
intentioned  but  overzealous  persons  with  respect 
to  our  naval  and  military  system  and  armaments. 
They  consider  them  breeders  and  harbingers  of 
war. 

An  army  and  navy  are  merely  a  mighty  quar- 
antine system  against  the  pestilence  of  war.  We 
must  fortify  our  shores,  police  our  seas  with 
armor-dads,  and  be  prepared  to  patrol  the  skies 
with  aeroplanes  around  our  entire  national  horizon 
when  the  need  may  come. 

But  it  is  urged  that  the  people  are  over- 
burdened with  the  cost  of  maintaining  armies  and 
navies.  Assuming  that  the  burden  is  great,  was 
it  ever  less?  "Was  it  ever  so  small  as  it  is  now, 
compared  with  the  numbers  and  wealth  of  the  peo- 
ple? Again,  cannot  we  well  afford  to  bear  a  con- 
siderable burden  of  armaments  as  an  insurance 

[8] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

against  war,  and  as  a  further  insurance  that  if 
war  comes,  it  will  be  far  less  deadly  than  it  would 
be  without  them? 

If  Dr.  Jordan  were  better  acquainted  with  the 
manufacture  of  war  materials,  he  would  know  that 
they  can  be  made  more  cheaply,  with  equal  ex- 
cellence, by  private  concerns,  than  by  the  gov- 
ernment. Furthermore,  he  would  know  that  big 
manufacturers  of  war  materials  are  obliged  to 
employ  a  very  large  force  of  skilled  labor,  and 
that  this  labor  has  to  be  supplied  employment 
when  there  are  no  government  orders  for  war  ma- 
terials. For  example,  the  manufacture  of  armor- 
plate  by  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  is 
only  a  small  part  of  that  company's  business. 
The  manufacture  of  guns  and  armor-plate  by  the 
Bethlehem  Steel  Company  does  not  keep  it  con- 
stantly occupied,  and  it  has  to  furnish  other  em- 
ployment for  its  men  when  government  orders  are 
not  forthcoming.  Consequently,  it  is  obliged  to 
make  things  besides  armor-plate  and  guns  and 
war  materials. 

The  dn  Pont  explosives  companies  do  a  far 
larger  business  in  high  explosives  and  smokeless 
powders  for  commercial  purposes  than  they  do 
for  government  purposes. 

Therefore,  if  the  manufacture  of  war  materials 
were  to  be  confined  entirely  to  government  shops, 
then  the  government  would  truly  have  to  promote 
war  to  keep  its  employees  busy.    At  any  rate, 

[9] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

the  government  would  have  to  maintain  a  large 
labor  force,  making  war  materials  alone,  for  the 
government  could  not  devote  itself  to  the  manu- 
facture of  automobiles,  chairs,  cloth,  artificial 
leather,  dynamite,  sporting  powder,  and  the  like, 
for  commercial  purposes,  as  private  manufactur- 
ers do. 

There  is  another  reason  why  the  private  manu- 
facturers of  war  materials  should  be  encouraged 
by  the  government,  and  it  is  that,  in  the  event  of 
war,  the  government  would  find  the  large  capital 
and  plants  of  the  wealthy  Steel  Trust,  the  Bethle- 
hem Steel  Company,  and  the  du  Fonts  available 
for  the  purpose  of  national  defense  in  addition 
to  the  government's  own  resources.  This  is  very 
important. 

The  battle  of  Lake  Erie  was  quite  as  much  a 
du  Pont  victory  as  a  Perry  victory;  for  the  re- 
sources, energy,  and  generalship  of  the  du  Pont 
Powder  Company  overcame  inconceivable  difficul- 
ties, carted  the  powder  from  Wilmington,  Dela- 
ware, all  the  way  overland  to  Lake  Erie,  and  got 
it  there  on  time. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  a  person's  confidence  in 
his  knowledge  of  a  subject  is  often  directly  pro- 
portionate to  his  ignorance  of  the  subject.  It  is  a 
psychological  truth  that  ignorance  may  be  taught, 
just  like  anything  else,  and  a  person  may  become 
very  erudite  in  things  which  are  not  true,  just 
as  he  may  in  things  which  are  true. 

[10] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

Dr.  Jordan,  in  recent  public  utterances,  has 
said  that  he  would  rather  the  United  States  should 
lose  its  Pacific  possessions  than  that  we  should 
go  to  war;  and  he  has  remarked  that  now,  while 
the  world  is  drunk  with  war,  is  a  bad  time  to  lay 
in  more  liquor.  This  is  an  ingenious  metaphor, 
and  well  designed  to  trip  the  intelligence  of  the 
unwary.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  when  the  world  is 
drunk  with  war,  and  rapine,  murder,  and  plunder 
are  rife,  it  is  exactly  the  time  to  lay  in  more  am- 
munition. 

Had  Dr.  Jordan  been  in  the  position  of  Captain 
John  Smith  in  the  Virginia  colony,  when  the 
Indians  were  on  the  war-path,  he  would  have  ad- 
vised the  settlers  to  disarm  and  destroy  their 
stockades  and  forts.  The  Indians  at  that  time 
went  on  the  war-path  and  got  drunk  for  war  be- 
cause they  had  a  grievance. 

"When  the  present  war  is  over  and  international 
commerce  is  re-established,  we  are  destined  to 
give  some  other  nation  a  grievance,  for  the 
same  reason  that  we  then  gave  those  Indians  a 
grievance,  and  that  other  nation  will  go  on  the 
war-path,  just  as  those  Indians  did,  and  that  other 
nation  when  it  takes  up  the  torch  and  the  sword 
and  gets  a  taste  of  blood,  is  going  to  be  as  sav- 
age as  the  men  engaged  in  the  present  European 
conflict. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  true  prophets :  The  one 
kind,  like  Isaiah,  who  is  directly  inspired  of  God ; 

[11] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

and  the  other  kind,  who  judges  the  future  by  the 
lessons  of  the  past.  The  scientist  is  a  true 
prophet;  but  he  is  not  one  of  the  inspired  kind. 
The  way  he  does  his  predicting  is  the  way  of  the 
astronomer,  who  uses  a  base  line  the  width  of  the 
earth's  orbit  in  order  to  triangulate  the  parallax 
of  a  star.  So  the  scientific  prophet  triangulates 
the  parallax  of  future  events  from  a  base  line  com- 
passing all  human  history. 

There  is  no  one  lesson  which  history  teaches 
ns  more  plainly  than  that  thfe  possession  of  wealth 
by  a  defenseless  nation  is  a  standing  casus  belli 
to  other  nations,  and  that  always  there  has  been 
the  nation  standing  ready  to  attack  and  plunder 
any  other  nation  when  there  was  likely  to  be 
sufficient  profit  in  the  enterprise  to  pay  foi*  the 
trouble.  Never  have  we  seen  any  treaty  stand 
for  long  in  the  way  of  such  practices  between  na- 
tions. Treaties  have  always  been  mere  scraps  of 
paper,  which,  like  the  cobweb,  ensnare  the  weak, 
while  they  let  the  strong  break  through. 

It  is  strange  that  those  who  recommend  that 
this  country  try  the  experiment  of  disarmament 
to  secure  peace  by  setting  other  nations  a  great 
moral  example,  should  not  have  read  history  to  see 
whether  or  not  the  experiment  were  a  new  one; 
and  whether  or  not,  judging  by  past  experiments, 
it  were  likely  to  prove  a  success  or  a  failure. 
Should  these  men  look  back  through  history,  they 
would  find  that  ancient  Egypt  tried  the  experi- 

[12] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

ment,  and  went  down  under  the  sword  and  torch 
of  fierce  invaders  from  over  the  desert.  They 
would  learn  that  the  Greeks  tried  the  experiment 
and  found  it  a  failure.  They  would  learn  that 
India  and  China  have  bled  through  the  ages  be- 
cause of  their  peaceableness.  They  would  learn 
that  the  fall  of  Carthage  was  due  not  so  much 
to  the  superior  military  power  of  Rome,  or  to  the 
reiterations  of  Cato  that  Carthage  must  be  de- 
stroyed, as  it  was  to  the  peace  talk  of  Hanno, 
which  withheld  the  necessary  support  of  Hannibal 
in  Italy.  They  would  learn  that  when  old  Rome 
lost  her  vigor  and  neglected  her  defenses,  she  was 
hewn  to  pieces  by  fierce  barbarians.  They  would 
learn  that  the  fathers  of  our  own  country,  after 
the  Revolution,  tried  the  same  old  experiment, 
with  the  result  that  the  city  of  Washington  was 
captured  and  burned  by  the  British  in  the  war  of 
1812.  They  would  learn,  furthermore,  that  all 
prophets  who  have  said  that  the  nations  will  war 
no  more,  have  been  false  prophets. 

Four  years  before  the  Russo-Japanese  war,  I 
wrote  an  article  for  a  New  York  magazine,  in 
which  I  prophesied  that  war,  and  predicted 
Japanese  victory.  I  predicted  also  at  the  same 
time  that  there  would  be  in  the  near  future  a 
general  European  conflict.    It  has  come. 

The  following  quotations  from  that  article  may 
be  of  interest: 

[13]' 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

*'By  far  the  greatest  probability  of  imminent 
war  lies  in  the  Far  East,  between  Russia  and 
Japan.  Japan  feels  the  sting  of  the  Russian  whip 
that  made  her  drop  Port  Arthur  and  unthdraiv 
from  the  continent  of  Asia,  thus  relinquishing  the 
chief  advantages  gained  by  her  victory  over 
China.  The  whole  sum  paid  Japan  by  China  as 
a  war  indemnity  has  been  expended  on  her 
navy  and  on  armaments.  In  the  East,  in  both 
naval  a/nd  military  strength,  she  is  superior  to 
Russia. 

"Whether  or  not  we  shall  soon  have  war  will 
depend  on  whether  Japan  will  quietly  wait  until 
Russia  shall  have  finished  the  Trans-Siberian 
Railway,  secured  Korea,  intrenched  and  fortified 
herself  along  the  Asiatic  coast,  and  built  a  fleet  of 
sufficient  strength  entirely  to  overawe  the  little 
empire.  It  is  doubtful  if  Japan  will  wait  for  the 
time  when  Russia  shall  be  ready  to  strangle  her. 
She  may  strike  and  drive  Russia  from  Korea  and 
secure,  as  well,  a  fair  share  of  Chinese  territory; 
or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  a  lease  of  a 
portion  of  the  Celestial  Empire.  She  will  there- 
after be  better  able  to  protect  her  interests  in 
Chinese  trade  and  opportunities.  Should  she 
strike  soon,  and  she  and  Russia  be  left  to  them- 
selves, Japan  ought  to  win,  for  she  is  close  at  hand 
and  will  be  able  to  bring  to  bear  upon  the  points 
of  collision  a  much  greater  force  than  Russia.   She 

[14] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

will  also  be  able  to  act  ttnth  correspondingly 
greater  celerity. 


''If  we  would  essay  to  predict  future  events, 
we  must  draw  the  lines  of  divination  in  the  direc- 
tion that  we  see  the  nations  grow,  and  these  lines 
must  be  parallel  with  those  of  great  commercial 
interests — be  parallel  with  those  of  national  self- 
interests.  We  then  have  but  one  more  question 
to  consider,  on  which  to  base  a  priori  judgment. 
It  is  the  question  of  might — of  national  resources 
and  blood  and  iron. 

"What  was  true  on  a  small  scale,  with  primi- 
tive tribes  of  men,  is  also  true  on  a  large  scale, 
with  the  great  world  powers  of  today.  In  early 
times,  like  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tides  of  the 
sea,  conquest  and  re-conquest,  victory  and  defeat, 
followed  one  another.  Then  destruction  suc- 
ceeded growth  and  growth  destruction. 

"As  the  great  banyan  tree  constantly  en- 
croaches upon  the  territory  of  surrounding  flora, 
to  overtop  and  blight  and  kill  all  upon  which  its 
shadow  falls,  so  do  and  so  must  nations  in  their 
growth  encroach  upon  their  neighbors. 

"In  recent  times,  the  tremendous  strides  made 
in  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  the  birth  of  new  in- 
dustries, and  the  enormous  growth  of  all,  have 
provided  room  and  occupation  for  the  earth* s 
great  dominating  peoples.    Vast  land  areas  have 

[15] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

been  reclaimed,  and  boundless  resources  de- 
veloped. Thus  far  the  overflow  has  been  upon 
the  lands  of  the  tameless  American  Indian — of  the 
lazy  African — of  the  docile  Hindoo,  and  the  sim- 
ple savage  of  the  southern  seas.  Now  it  is  China^s 
turn,  and  the  wolves  of  greed,  in  the  guise  of 
trade,  are  already  howling  at  her  gates. 

'^  Growth  is  proceeding  with  constantly  accel- 
erating rapidity,  and  soon  the  overflow  must  be 
on  lands  already  filled  to  overflowing — not  then 
with  simple  savages.  It  will  then  be  Greek  to 
Greek,  over  fortresses  that  frown  along  the  whole 
frontier.  Then  there  will  be  a  clash.  It  is  com- 
ing. Where  the  storm  will  first  break,  and  when, 
is  a  question.  That  a  great  conflict  will  come,  and 
at  no  distant  date,  is  certain.' ' — "The  Home 
Magazine,"  July,  1900, 

At  tlie  first  animal  banquet  of  the  Aeronautical 
Society  four  years  ago,  I  predicted  exactly  the  use 
of  the  aeroplane  in  war  that  it  has  had  since  that 
time.  President  Taft  was  one  of  the  speakers, 
and  his  subject  was  his  pet  peace  and  arbitration 
treaties.  He  said  that  there  were  not  likely  to  be 
the  requisite  wars  for  testing  out  the  aeroplane, 
as  predicted.  He  said  that  there  was  going  to  be 
a  shortage  of  wars. 

Since  that  time,  we  have  had  the  revolution 
in  China,  the  Italian  war  with  Tripoli,  the  Balkan 
j^ars,  a  continuous  revolutionary  performance  in, 
,   [16] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

Mexico,  and  finally,  we  have  the  present  great 
European  War.  Not  much  of  a  shortage  in  wars, 
truly ! 

The  following  quotation  from  Dr.  David  Starr 
Jordan's  *'  War  and  Waste  "  is  an  excellent  illus- 
tration of  the  prophetic  wisdom  that  is  keeping 
the  United  States  of  America  unprepared  against 
war: 

/  **Wliat  shall  we  say  of  the  Great  War  of  Eil- 
rope,  ever  threatening,  ever  impending,  and  which 
never  comes?  We  shall  say  that  it  will  never 
come.    Humanly  speaking,  it  is  impossible. j 

*'Not  in  the  physical  sense,  of  course,  for^ith 
weak,  reckless,  and  godless  men  nothing  evil  is 
impossible.  It  m<w/  be,  of  course,  that  some  half- 
crazed  archduke  or  some  harassed  minister  of 
state  sludl  half-knowing  give  the  signal  for  Eu- 
rope's conflagration.  In  fact,  the  agreed  signal 
has  been  given  more  than  once  within  the  last  few 
months.  The  tinder  is  well  dried  and  laid  in  such 
a  way  as  to  make  the  worst  of  this  catastrophe. 
All  Europe  cherishes  is  ready  for  the  burning. 
Yet  Europe  recoils  and  will  recoil  even  in  the 
dread  stress  of  spoil-division  of  the  Balkan 
war.  .  .  . 

"But  accident  aside,  the  Triple  Entente  lined 
up  against  the  Triple  Alliance,  we  shall  expect  no 
war^.  .  . 

rThe  bankers  mU  not  find  the  money  for  such  a 

(  [17] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

fight,  the  industries  of  Europe  will  not  maintain 
it,  the  statesmen  cannot.  So  whatever  the  bluster 
or  apparent  provocation,  it  comes  to  the  same^ 
thing  at  the  end.  There  will  be  no  general  war) 
until  the  masters  direct  the  fighters  to  fight.  Tm 
masters  have  much  to  gain,  but  vastly  more  to 
lose,  and  their  signal  will  not  he  given.^' 

Eight  years  ago,  when  the  great  Peace  Con- 
ference was  held  at  Carnegie  Hall,  New  York, 
to  discuss  the  limitation  and  abolishment  of  arma- 
ments, the  most  notable  of  the  pacifists  repre- 
sented were  invited  by  the  Econcnnic  Club  of  Bos- 
ton to  attend  a  banquet  in  that  city  for  the  free 
hot-airing  of  their  views. 

There  was  much  sophistical  palaver  about  de- 
stroying our  old  battle-flags  and  leveling  our  sol- 
diers' monuments  and  all  landmarks  and  remind- 
ers of  war.  William  T.  Stead,  however,  was  more 
rational,  and  he  was  annoyed  by  the  silly  imprac- 
ticable nonsense  of  some  of  the  dubs  of  peace. 
Stead's  better  sense  was  evidenced  by  the  fact 
that  the  following  winter  he  reocwnmended  to  the 
British  Parliament  that  England  build  two  battle- 
ships to  every  one  built  by  Germany. 

Invited  to  speak  in  defense  of  armaments,  I 
held  that  we  must  arm  for  peace,  and  not  disarm 
for  it.  I  began  my  remarks  by  telling;  them  this 
story : 

In  a  small  paragraph  in  an  obscwe  place  upon 
[18] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

the  back  page  of  a  leading  Boston  paper,  I  once 
saw  the  announcement  that  Herbert  Spencer,  the 
great  philosopher,  was  very  ill,  and  not  expected 
to  live.  On  the  front  page  of  the  same  paper, 
under  bold  headlines,  was  a  three-column  article 
on  the  physical  condition  of  John  L.  Sullivan. 

John  L.  Sullivan  was  a  fighter,  while  Herbert 
Spencer  was  only  a  philosopher ;  hence  the  differ- 
ence in  public  interest. 

John  L.  Sullivan,  in  his  time,  standing  on  the 
corner,  would  deplete  the  hall  and  break  up  any 
peace  meeting  in  the  world,  and  block  the  street 
with  massed  humanity  for  a  square,  jostling  for 
a  sight  of  him. 

Several  years  ago,  a  reverend  gentleman  by 
the  name  of  Charles  Edward  Jefferson  elicited 
much  applause  by  his  public  utterances  on  the 
blessings  and  advantages  of  non-resistance  and 
meekness  mild.  He  made  it  as  clear  as  the  day 
dawn  of  June,  to  the  unreasoning,  that  it  is  all 
a  mistake  to  build  guns,  warships,  and  coast  forti- 
fications ;  that  our  war  colleges  are  not  institutions 
of  actual  learning  at  all,  but  are  institutions  for 
teaching  ignorance.  He  declared  that  militarism 
is  squandering  the  taxpayers '  money  by  the  hun- 
dreds of  millions,  and  all  because  the  advocates 
of  militarism  and  the  friends  of  militarism  are 
perverse  and  wilfully  wot  not  what  they  do, 
though  wisdom  radiant  as  the  rainbow  stares  them 
in  the  face;  and  because  our  military  men,  who 

[19] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

have  been  educated  at  government  expense  and 
who,  we  have  thought,  were  devoting  their  lives 
to  the  country's  service  in  studying  its  needs  and 
fighting  its  battles,  are  desirous  merely  of  promo- 
tion and  of  widening  the  sphere  of  their  activities. 

According  to  Dr.  Jefferson,  these  men  are  not 
what  we  have  supposed  them — a  bulwark  against 
trouble,  but  are  trouble-makers,  ignorant  of  the 
primary  essential  of  their  profession,  namely 
militant  meekness ;  and  instead  of  being  guardians 
of  peace  and  an  assurance  against  war,  they  are 
actual  war-breeders.  He  seems  to  think  that  there 
is  a  real  conspiracy  to  squander  the  taxpayers' 
money  in  the  interest  of  a  military  clique. 

A  man  may  be  wrong,  and  yet  be  honest.  Preju- 
dice is  honest.  Dr.  Jefferson  is  doubtless  honest, 
and  if  it  should  be  that  he  is  right,  then  his  doc- 
trine is  practicable.  If  he  is  right,  our  military 
men  are  wrong.  If  our  army  and  navy  officers, 
who  have  been  educated  at  the  public  expense  and 
in  the  school  of  experience,  do  not  know  and 
understand  better  this  country's  needs  in  the  re- 
spects and  particulars  for  which  they  have  been 
educated  than  does  this  good  ecclesiastic,  then  it 
is  proved  that  the  church  is  a  better  military 
school  than  Annapolis  or  West  Point.  Theology, 
and  not  military  science,  should  hereafter  be 
taught  in  those  institutions.  The  military  parade 
should  be  called  in  from  the  campus  and  be 
replaced  by  knee  drill  in  the  chapel,  and  here- 

[20] 


DANGEROUS  PREACHMENTS 

after,  at  Annapolis,  at  West  Point,  and  along  the 
firing-line,  the  command  should  be  Shoulder 
Psalms,  instead  of  Shoulder  Arms. 

Let  us  lay  down  our  arms  and  spike  our  guns, 
disband  the  military  parade  from  the  campus,  as 
the  sentimentalists  desire  us  to  do,  and  we  shall 
very  soon,  with  Kubla  Khan,  hear  "ancestral 
voices  [George  Washington's  among  them] 
prophesying  war.*' 


[21]' 


CHAPTER  n 
CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

I  AM  a  peace  advocate — that  is  to  say,  I  am 
one  who  advocates  an  active  campaign  in  the 
cause  of  peace,  employing  the  best  means  and 
instruments  for  the  accomplishment  of  practical 
results. 

Unfortunately,  a  wide  difference  of  opinion  ex- 
ists in  the  ranks  of  those  who  style  themselves 
peace  advocates  as  to  how  the  war  against  war 
can  best  be  fought.  That  difference  of  opinion  is 
as  to  whether  we  should  arm  for  the  fray,  or  dis- 
arm for  it.  Shall  we  go  into  the  fight  with  sword 
and  buckler,  and  with  armor  on,  prepared  to  re- 
turn blow  with  stronger  blow ;  or  shall  we  go  into 
the  fight  with  bared  breasts,  and,  when  we  receive 
a  blow  upon  one  cheek  turn  the  other  cheek  also, 
and  let  both  our  eyes  be  blackened  and  our  nose 
be  skinned  in  order  to  shame  our  antagonist,  by 
giving  him  an  object  lesson  of  the  horrors  of 
war! 

Ernst  Haeckel  has  said  there  is  nothing  con- 
stant but  change.  He  might  have  said  also  that 
there  is  a  no  more  consistent  thing  in  its  con- 
stancy than  human  inconsistency. 

[22] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

That  other  great  philosopher,  Herbert  Spencer, 
declared  that,  as  he  grew  older,  the  more  and 
more  he  realized  the  extent  to  which  mankind  is 
governed  by  irrationality. 

Josh  Billings  said,  *'It  is  not  so  much  the  igno- 
rance of  men  that  makes  them  ridiculous  as  what 
they  know  that  is  not  so." 

The  complex  problems  of  ethics,  eugenics, 
economics,  and  human  dynamics,  which  enter  into 
all  questions  and  problems  of  peace  and  war,  are 
like  so  many  Chinese  puzzles  to  the  ordinary 
mind. 

There  are,  broadly  speaking,  two  kinds  of  minds 
— the  ratiocinative  and  the  irrational;  in  other 
words,  the  logical  and  the  illogical.  X^ie  logical 
mind  proceeds  scientifically  from  sure  premises 
to  just  conclusions,  taking  no  direction  and  travel- 
ing no  faster  and  no  farther  in  any  direction  than 
warranted  and  justified  by  ascertained  fact.  The 
irrational  or  illogical  mind,  on  the  contrary,  is 
unable  to  discriminate  between  belief  and  knowl- 
edge, between  facts  and  fancies.  Consequently, 
this  type  of  mind  proceeds  from  guess  to  con- 
clusion, with  the  result  that  final  judgment  is 
necessarily  distorted,  warped,  and  swerved  from 
truth  just  in  proportion  as  the  basic  guess  is  in- 
correct or  false. 

There  is  a  no  more  momentous  problem  before 
the  world  today  than  that  of  international  juris- 
prudence, especially  with  respect  to  the  mainte- 

[23] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

nance  of  peace  where  practicable,  and  the  control 
of  wars,  when  wars  are  inevitable  or  necessary; 
and  there  is  no  subject  of  such  moment  more 
fruitful  of  irrationalism. 

In  the  light  of  practical  common-sense,  there 
is  nothing  funnier  in  the  writings  of  Mark  Twain 
than  the  inconsistent  prating  of  our  peace  soph- 
ists. It  is  as  though  they  let  not  their  right-hand 
brain  know  what  their  left-hand  brain  is  doing. 
They  are  usually  brimmed  and  primed  with  sac- 
rificial sentimentality  and  over-soul.  Their  deli- 
catessen natures  shrink  from  contact  with  the 
stern,  man-making  realities  of  life.  They  are  the 
disciples  of  soft  stuff.  The  mush  and  moonshine 
of  maudlin  sentimentalism  are  their  element. 
They  possess  no  powers  of  discrimination  between 
the  actual  and  the  erroneous.  The  guise  of  fact 
is  no  recommendation  to  them  unless  it  fits  into 
their  scheme.  An  error  is  far  more  welcome  if 
it  comes  in  a  garmenture  that  conforms  with  their 
ideals.  They  put  their  union  label  on  what  we  re- 
ceive by  the  grace  of  God,  but  they  fail  to  recog- 
nize and  appreciate  that  they  cannot  comprehend 
the  infinite;  that  what  to  them  seems  disorder 
and  confusion  in  the  world  may  be  the  most  per- 
fect order  in  the  eye  of  God.  They  cannot  under- 
stand how  infinite  wisdom,  infinite  justice,  and  in- 
finite mercy  should  have  created  a  warring  world ; 
consequently,  they  have  set  themselves  the  task 
of  repairing  the  faults  of  creation  and  of  recreat- 

[24] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

ing  the  world  to  suit  their  own  ideas  as  to  what 
infinite  wisdom  and  mercy  ought  to  be. 

When  one  of  these  peace  sophists  gets  into  a 
fight,  however,  he  promptly  prays  to  God  to  help 
him  whip  the  other  fellow.  The  pacific  sentimen- 
talist is  usually  a  most  arrant  coward.  In  time 
of  war,  the  cowardly  sentimental  pacifists  are 
the  loudest  in  appeals  to  Almighty  God  to  fight  on 
their  side  and  to  lead  their  army  to  victory — that 
same  army  which  in  time  of  peace  they  have  done 
everything  in  their  power  to  disarm  and  dis- 
band. 

Eecently,  when  speaking  at  a  church,  I  was 
asked  the  question,  "How  long  is  it  going  to  take 
to  make  might  right?"  I  asked  my  interrogator 
this  question:  "If,  at  the  creation,  you  had  been 
consulted  and  your  advice  asked  as  to  whether  or 
not  a  world  should  be  made  in  which  all  life  should 
feed  on  other  life,  and  half  of  the  animal  creation 
should  be  made  prey  for  the  other  half;  whether 
everything  should  be  made  tooth  and  nail,  claw 
and  scale,  hunter  and  hunted,  terror  and  blood, 
strife  and  war;  whether  or  not  the  cat  should 
train  for  the  hunt  by  torturing  the  little  bird — 
how  would  you  have  replied  to  God?"  My  querist 
did  not  answer  me,  but  went  home  to  think  it 
over. 

I  do  not  purpose  to  make  any  apology  for  In- 
finite Wisdom.  My  pacifist  friends  are  doing  that 
constantly.    It  is  my  humble  opinion  that  the 

[25] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

Creator  did  the  best  He  could  for  us,  and  that  we 
ought  to  be  thankful  and  grateful. 
I  believe  with  Pope,  that: 

''Spite  of  pride,  in  erring  reason's  spite, 
One  truth  is  clear — whatever  is,  is  right." 

I  realize  that  the  most  perfect  order  is  confusion 
to  the  mind  that  is  not  constituted  to  compre- 
hend it. 

I  know  that  the  macrocosmic  mechanism 
moves  with  mathematical  exactitude,  and  that  we, 
in  comparison,  are  mighty  only  in  our  arrogance ; 
that,  in  fact,  we  are  but  microscopic  specks  in 
the  drift  of  worlds. 

Nature  seems  to  care  little  for  individuals,  but 
very  much  for  races  and  species ;  little  indeed  for 
a  person,  very  much  for  a  people. 

The  terms,  right  and  wrong,  good  and  bad,  are 
entirely  relative.  Eight  for  an  individual  may 
not  be  so  for  a  large  aggregation  of  individuals. 
The  welfare  of  a  nation  or  a  people  may  not  be 
the  welfare  of  the  world,  and  God  has  His  eye 
on  the  world. 

The  wrong  are  weak,  the  right  are  strong. 
This  mean  the  two  terms  right  and  wrong; 
And  truth  sought  out  to  any  length, 
Finds  all  wrong  weakness,  all  right  strength. 

[26] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WARl 

FoBMATivE  Strife 

Primeval  man  found  himself  thmst  into  an  en- 
vironment where  all  animal  life  fed  on  other  life, 
and  half  the  animal  creation  was  prey  for  the 
other  half.  He  was  one  of  the  hunted.  Yet,  with 
less  strength  but  greater  cunning,  he  was  destined 
to  master  all.  Man's  supremacy  has  been  de- 
veloped by  warfare  of  wit,  craft,  and  cunning, 
versus  brute  force. 

Primitive  man  found  himself  **up  a  tree"  in 
both  the  actual  and  the  metaphoric  sense.  His 
teeth  and  claws  were  no  match  for  those  of  the 
leopard  and  the  sabre-toothed  tiger.  He  had  no 
recourse  but  flight  until  stern  necessity  taught 
him  to  wield  a  club. 

Then  he  climbed  down  from  his  abode  in  trees, 
and  began  the  conquest  of  the  earth.  The  club 
made  man  a  traveler.  His  forays  with  that 
weapon  taught  him  to  walk  and  fight  upon  his 
hind  legs,  and  gave  him  his  erect  carriage.  But 
he  had  to  travel  a  long  and  thorny  pathway  in- 
deed, armed  only  with  a  club,  before  he  invented 
the  stone  hatchet  and  spear  of  sharpened  flint  or 
bone.  It  was  a  far-flung  span  across  the  gulf  of 
time  from  the  tree-home  to  the  cave  in  the  hill, 
his  new  abiding-place. 

The  bow  and  arrow,  which  enabled  him  to  kill 
at  long  range,  were  his  next  weapon,  and  were  the 
greatest  invention  of  all  time. 

[27] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

The  protection  of  the  heart  with  the  left  arm 
and  shield,  with  the  right  arm  free  to  wield  the 
sword  or  hurl  the  javelin,  made  man  right-handed. 

Armed  with  the  bow  and  arrow,  spear  and 
shield,  man  was  equipped  still  better  for  travel; 
and  ever  since  travel  has  been  widening  out  the 
sky  and  broadening  man's  mental  horizon. 

The  fighting  spirit  widened  the  acquaintance 
of  different  peoples,  and  the  terrible  menace  of 
some  savage  common  enemy  forced  different 
tribes  to  unite  and  build  up  nations.  Union 
against  danger  is  the  best  instructor  of  self-gov- 
ernment, and  the  best  guarantee  of  internal  good 
behavior. 

It  is  generally  recognized  that  man  is  a  product 
of  his  environment ;  that  he  is  in  body  and  mind 
the  sum  of  his  own  and  ancestral  experiences ;  that 
he  is  omnivorous;  that  he  drinks  water  and 
breathes  air ;  and  yet,  many  persons  fail  to  recog- 
nize the  inevitable  concomitant  conclusion  that  he 
is  also  of  necessity  a  warring  animal,  and  that  the 
formative  influences  of  the  fierce  struggle  for  ex- 
istence have  made  him  what  he  is.  His  life  is  a 
series  of  reactions  to  environing  stimuli;  and  he 
is  actuated  and  shaped  by  those  stimuli,  and  just 
as  those  stimuli  have  been  necessary  to  his  growth, 
so  they  are  still  necessary  to  his  continued  growth, 
and  even  to  his  very  existence.  In  other  words, 
the  formative  influences  that  have  made  and  sus- 
tained man  are  still  necessary  to  his  maintenance. 

[28] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WARf 

The  character  of  the  strife  may  be  changed,  and  is 
already  largely  changed,  from  war  to  business. 
But  the  intensity  of  the  struggle  cannot  be  al- 
leviated one  whit,  because  it  is  impossible,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  to  maintain  man^s  strength  of 
character  in  any  other  way.  He  could  live  a  little 
longer  without  strife  than  without  food  or  air  or 
water,  but  the  absence  of  strife  would  be  as  fatal 
to  him  in  the  end  as  would  be  the  absence  of  food, 
air,  or  water. 

The  struggle  for  existence  has  always  been  a 
business  proposition  with  man,  and  business  to- 
day is  a  struggle  for  existence  as  intense  and  mer- 
ciless as  the  struggle  in  war. 

In  olden  times,  piracy  and  war  for  plunder  were 
the  principal  business  of  mankind.  Today,  busi- 
ness is  a  warfare,  and  though  it  may  be  law- 
abiding,  still  the  weak  go  down  under  it  and  suf- 
fer and  die  under  it  as  surely  as  they  did  in  old- 
time  wars.  The  relation  of  strength  to  weakness 
remains  unchanged,  and  the  reward  for  strength 
and  the  penalty  for  weakness  are  as  great  as  they 
ever  were. 

There  now  exists,  as  always,  the  same  inten- 
sity of  incentive  of  all  classes  to  strive  for  some- 
thing more  and  something  better  than  they  have. 
Though  the  condition  of  all  classes  has  improved, 
the  struggle  of  individual  with  individual  is  as 
great,  the  strife  of  class  with  class  is  as  intense 
as  ever. 

[291 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

The  ownership  of  one's  earnings,  with  freedom 
to  apply  and  enjoy  them,  was  the  greatest  prize 
ever  offered  to  stimulate  the  working  genius  of 
this  world,  and  the  results  during  the  past  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  have  been  phenomenal. 

The  world  has  progressed  more  within  that 
time  in  those  things  which  tend  to  complete  liv- 
ing than  it  had  previously  progressed  in  all  the 
ages  that  had  dragged  their  slow  length  along 
since  the  world  thawed  out  of  the  ancient  ice. 

But  human  agencies,  like  all  agencies  in  nature, 
are  essentially  rhythmical.  In  order  to  accumu- 
late the  necessary  energy  and  enthusiasm  to  go 
far  enough  in  the  right  direction,  we  inevitably 
go  too  far,  and,  when  the  pendulum  returns,  it 
swings  to  the  other  extreme. 

It  is  important  to  realize  the  great  truth  that 
freedom  ends  when  it  aims  beyond  the  spirit 
which  strives  for  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest 
number. 

According  to  Herbert  Spencer,  the  criminal 
classes  are  composed  of  those  who  have  been 
pushed  out  of  the  race  in  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence under  modern  conditions.  They  were  normal 
components  of  society  in  the  past,  when  all  men 
were  soldiers  and  all  soldiers  were  bandits,  and 
the  principal  business  of  mankind  was  piracy  and 
war  for  plunder. 

There  being  no  longer  the  ever-present  oppor- 
tunity to  join  in  an  inter-tribal  or  an  international 

[30] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

war  for  robbery,  the  soldier-bandit  now  makes 
war  upon  society. 

All  of  the  Huns  and  Vandals  in  our  midst  are 
today  armed  with  the  short-sword  of  the  ballot. 
How  important  it  is  then  that  they  should  be 
taught  to  know  and  to  understand  that  in  the 
use  of  this  weapon  their  work  should  be  formative 
and  not  def  ormative ;  that  it  should  be  constructive 
and  not  destructive ! 

SuBsirruTioN  op  Law  fob  Wab 

The  poet's  words,  "The  parliament  of  man,  the 
federation  of  the  world,"  have  become  a  very 
familiar  quotation  in  recent  years.  Anciently  all 
wisdom  was  taught  in  poesy,  and  we  have  never 
yet  quite  freed  ourselves  from  the  age-long  habi- 
tude of  receiving  as  unimpeachable  wisdom  what- 
ever may  be  said  in  verse. 

To  the  common  mind,  a  statement  in  didactic 
verse  has  the  proselyting  power  of  Holy  Writ. 
Now,  this  line  of  Tennyson,  **The  parliament  of 
man,  the  federation  of  the  world,"  points  us 
toward  a  Utopia,  without  hope  of  actual  attain- 
ment. 

There  is  at  the  present  time  a  growing  good 
intention  to  put  an  end  to  wars  by  international 
conciliation  and  arbitration;  in  short,  to  substi- 
tute  law  for   war.    We   must,   however,   keep 
strongly  in  mind  the  interdependence  of  law  and 

[31] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

force,  and  the  consequent  interdependence  of  in- 
ternational law  and  armaments.  Conciliation  must 
not  be  confounded  with  arbitration,  and  persua- 
sion must  not  be  confounded  with  law. 

Law  has  been  aptly  designated  "codified  cus- 
tom." Actually,  law  is  an  attempt  to  construct 
experience  into  prophecy.  We  are  able  to  judge 
of  the  suflSciency  of  new  laws  only  by  the  suffi- 
ciency of  laws  in  past  practice. 

The  error  is  very  common,  to  confound  as  hav- 
ing the  same  meaning  terms  of  quite  opposite 
meanings — for  example,  it  is  a  very  common  er- 
ror to  confound  society  with  government,  and 
civilization  with  enlightenment.  Society  is  an 
order  of  things  by  virtue  of  which  we  are  able 
to  co-operate  with  one  another  and  to  enjoy  mu- 
tuality of  possessions  which  gives  them  their  only 
value ;  while  government  is  an  order  of  things  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  society. 

The  world  has  arrived  at  great  enlightenment, 
and  has  attained  some  degree  of  civilization. 
Self-interest  is  becoming  more  and  more  altruistic, 
and  altruism  is  becoming  more  and  more  profit- 
able. We  are  not  so  barbarous  as  we  used  to  be, 
but  we  still  slaughter  one  another  to  adjust  inter- 
national differences.  This  cannot  be  esteemed 
civil  procedure.  Enlightenment  may  be  very  un- 
civil, and  civility  may  not  be  enlightenment. 

The  great  problem  yet  remains  of  uniting  under 
[32] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

practical  laws  the  nations  of  the  earth  into  a 
family  of  nations. 

This  is  not  a  work  for  dreamers  or  sentimental- 
ists; but  is  purely  a  business  proposition,  which 
can  be  effected  only  to  the  extent  that  the  best  in- 
terests of  all  the  contracting  parties  are  thereby 
secured. 

When  wiU  arbitration  be  able  to  realize  the 
Utopian  dreams  of  the  pacifists  ?  General  Homer 
Lea  answers  the  question  once  for  all  in  the  fol- 
lowing expressive  terms : 

''Only  when  arbitration  is  able  to  unravel  the 
tangled  skein  of  crime  and  hypocrisy  among  in- 
dividuals can  it  be  extended  to  communities  and 
nations.  Thence  will  International  Arbitration 
come  of  its  own  accord  as  the  natural  outgrowth 
of  national  evolution  through  the  individual.  As 
nations  are  only  man  in  the  aggregate,  they  are 
the  aggregate  of  his  crimes  and  deception  and 
depravity,  and  so  long  as  these  constitute  the 
basis  of  individual  impulse,  so  long  will  they  con- 
trol the  acts  of  nations. 

*'When,  therefore,  the  merchant  arbitrates  with 
the  customer  he  is  about  to  cheat;  when  trusts 
arbitrate  with  the  people  they  are  about  to  fleece; 
when  the  bulls  and  bears  arbitrate  with  the  lambs 
they  are  about  to  shear;  when  the  thief  arbitrates 
with  the  man  he  is  about  to  rob,  or  the  murderer 
with  his  victim,  and  so  on  throughout  the  category 

[33] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

of  crime,  then  will  communities  he  able  to  dis- 
pense with  laws,  and  international  thievery  and 
deception,  shearing  and  murder,  resort  to  arbitra- 
tion." 

The  men  who  control  our  city  and  state  politics 
and  make  and  enforce  our  city  and  state  laws  all 
over  the  country  are  not  always  honest,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  they  are  often  notoriously  corrupt, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  have  much 
stronger  incentives  to  be  honest  here  than  they 
would  have  in  dealing  with  foreign  nations  and 
strange  peoples.  What,  therefore,  are  we  to  ex- 
pect of  their  integrity  and  their  honesty  in  the 
settlement  of  international  disputes  and  in  the 
enactment  and  execution  of  international  laws? 

What  an  enormous  field  for  graft  it  will  be 
when  some  weaker  nation  tries  to  get  its  rights  at 
the  coming  international  tribunal ! 

Our  laws  are  now  notoriously  inadequate  with 
respect  to  theft,  burglary,  highway  robbery,  and 
municipal-government  graft.  The  amount  of 
money  loss  to  the  people  of  this  country  through 
the  failure  of  our  laws  to  suppress  these  iniquities 
is  enough  to  support  a  standing  army  of  half  a 
million  men,  build  four  battleships  a  year,  and 
place  us  on  such  a  defensive  footing  as  absolutely 
to  preclude  all  danger  of  war  with  any  foreign 
power. 

Has  human  nature  improved  so  much  lately  that 
[34] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

special  privilege  will  no  longer  result  from  special 
power?  Has  the  human  race  progressed  so  much 
lately  that  privilege  and  oppression  will  not  fol- 
low power;  wealth  and  luxury  follow  privilege; 
and  degeneracy  and  disorganization  follow  wealth 
and  luxury? 

The  race  has  certainly  not  so  altered  that  men 
do  not  grow  old  and  die;  and  nations,  like  men, 
have  their  youth,  their  middle  age,  their  decrepi- 
tude and  death. 

Periodically,  some  religio-pathological  sect  will 
announce  the  conclusion  of  an  understanding  with 
the  Great  Eeaper,  whereby,  through  certain  in- 
cantations or  breathing  exercises,  death  may  be 
indefinitely  postponed;  but  they,  like  other  mor- 
tals, keep  on  dying. 

Those  good  men  who  are  the  leaders  in  the 
present  peace  movement  must  realize  the  fact 
that  the  carrying  out  of  their  project  will  de- 
volve, not  upon  them — not  upon  the  philanthropist, 
the  sentimentalist,  and  the  humanitarian — ^but 
upon  the  politician. 

The  actual  procedure  of  the  Hague  congresses 
enables  us  to  forecast  exactly  this  result.  The 
judicial  bench  of  that  court  was  a  bargain-counter, 
over  which  political  advantage  was  bartered  for 
political  advantage.  It  was  no  real  love  of  peace 
that  dominated  those  tribunals :  only  the  powerful 
nations  spoke  or  were  heard.  No  protection  was 
suggested  for  the  weaker  nations,  who,  presum- 

[35] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

ably,  would  be  most  benefited  by  international 
arbitration.  They  were  quite  out  of  the  running. 
International  arbitration  will  ultimately  become 
a  political  machine.  Nothing  can  prevent  it,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  those  politicians 
who  will  have  control  of  the  international  arbi- 
tration machine  will  be  any  more  honest  than 
other  machine  politicians. 

,   All  Law  Must  Be  Backed  by  Fobce 

It  is  a  popular  belief  that  when  the  paradoxical 
conciliatory  legal  persuasion  in  the  form  of  arbi- 
tration goes  into  effect,  we  shaU  no  longer  re- 
quire any  armaments,  but  may  forge  our  swords 
into  plow-shares  and  spears  into  pruning-hooks, 
disband  our  armies,  and  return  the  soldiers  to 
the  shops  and  farms. 

"We  are  prone  to  forget  that  law  is  as  much  a 
representative  of  the  requisite  power  behind  it  for 
its  enforcement  as  a  paper  dollar  is  a  representa- 
tive of  the  requisite  gold  available  for  its  redemp- 
tion. A  weU-known  orator  came  very  near  becom- 
ing President  through  a  popular  misconception  as 
to  the  interdependence  of  gold  and  paper  money, 
and  he  failed  to  get  the  Presidency  because  of  a 
public  awakening  to  the  error. 

We  are  prone  to  forget,  furthermore,  that  it  is 
the  respect  for  power  behind  law  that  makes  pos- 
sible its  enforcement.   Any  law  to  adjust  interna- 

[36] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

tional  differences  by  arbitration  will  simply  be  an 
embodiment  of  the  collective  wisdom  of  allied 
Powers  in  the  exercise  of  force,  and  a  force  that 
is  representative  of  their  banded  armies  and 
navies. 

International  law  is  static  military  force.  War 
is  the  dynamic  form  of  the  same  force.  I  believe 
in  international  arbitration  for  all  it  is  worth.  It 
is  a  good  thing  to  push  along.  It  will  unquestion- 
ably lessen  the  frequency  of  wars,  but  many  wars 
are  sure  to  come  in  spite  of  it,  and  because  of  it. 

NON-JUSTICIABLB   DiFFERENCBB 

There  are  ills  of  national  bodies  politic  that  can 
be  cured  only  by  the  sword.  Insurmountable  dif- 
ferences between  various  nations  and  races  of 
men  are  always  sure  to  arise,  as  impossible  to 
arbitrate  as  the  differences  between  the  herbivora 
and  the  carnivora. 

The  existence  of  the  carnivora  depends  upon  the 
sacrifice  of  the  herbivora.  Their  interests  are, 
from  their  very  nature,  antagonistic,  and  their 
differences  are,  by  consequence,  insurmountable, 
and  not  justiciable.  The  harmony  of  nature  de- 
pends upon  inharmony  between  the  meat-eaters 
and  the  vegetable-eaters,  and  the  harmony  of 
modern  progress  has  likewise  depended  in  large 
measure  upon  formative  inharmony  between 
peoples. 

[37] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

Such  radical  differences  and  such  concomitant 
radical  diversity  of  interests  exist  among  the  vari- 
ous races  of  men  that  the  task  of  harmonizing 
their  interests,  aims,  and  activities  will  be  about 
as  great  as  would  be  that  of  bleaching  their  skins 
to  a  uniform  color. 

It  is  a  practical  impossibility  to  enact  inter- 
national laws  that  will  make  the  welfare  of  each 
nation  the  concern  of  all,  with  no  subordination 
of  any  one  to  the  welfare  of  another.  Will  arbitra- 
tion be  able  to  place  all  peoples  upon  a  plane  of 
equality?  "Will  it  be  able  to  secure  to  all,  even 
the  meanest,  equal  rights  to  enjoyment  of  prop- 
erty, life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness? 

Will  arbitration  be  able  to  make  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  the  Teuton,  the  African,  and  the  Oriental 
meet  one  another  on  common  ground,  and  share 
and  share  alike,  live  and  let  live,  when  their  in- 
terests come  into  collision? 

If  arbitration  cannot  do  this — if  arbitration 
does  not  do  this — ^if  it  does  not  treat  all  with  strict 
impartiality,  then  those  who  are  ill-treated  are 
going  to  rebel,  and  wars  will  still  come. 

Between  nations  no  sentimental  consideration 
exists  or  is  possible,  sufficiently  effectual  to  exert 
more  than  the  merest  microscopic  influence  as  a 
deterrent  of  war.  Self-interest  always  has  been, 
and  always  will  be,  the  deciding  factor  in  the 
settlement  of  international  disputes.    War  un- 

[38] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

cloaks  international  hypocrisy,  and  the  people  are 
seen  in  their  true  character. 

The  attitude  of  the  warlike  and  powerful  na- 
tions in  the  past  toward  the  weaker  nations  has 
been  very  similar  to  that  of  the  camivora  toward 
the  herbivora. 

International  arbitration  may  somewhat  lessen 
the  burden  of  armaments,  but  the  time  will  be  long 
before  it  can  lift  the  burden.  The  orators  who 
plead  at  the  International  Tribunal  will  speak  in 
the  voice  of  the  deep-throated  guns  behind  them; 
their  persuasion  will  be  that  of  cold  steel,  and 
neither  brotherly  love  nor  international  sympathy 
will  be  their  guide,  but  self-interest,  and  no  de- 
mands will  be  relinquished  except  from  policy  in 
their  observance  of  such  rights  of  others  as  are 
warded  by  the  frowning  ramparts  of  opposing 
force. 

Unless  all  the  nations  of  the  world  join  in  the 
pact,  then  arbitration  will  simply  be  an  alliance 
for  the  benefit  of  the  allies  themselves  as  against 
all  others.  There  will  be  nothing  new  in  such  an 
arrangement.  The  Six  Nations  of  New  York  did 
the  same  thing ;  they  formed  a  federation  and  set- 
tled their  differences  by  arbitration,  and  it  was 
a  good  thing  for  the  Six  Nations ;  but  it  was  not 
a  good  thing  for  the  neighboring  Indian  tribes. 

We  Americans  expect  to  get  all  we  want  any 
way,  either  with  or  without  arbitration.  If  we 
expected  that  the  Chinese  would  be  forced  upon 

[39] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

us,  or  our  rights  and  privileges  curtailed  in  the 
Orient,  we  should  not  think  of  joining  in  an  ar- 
bitration pact  for  a  minute. 

■There  will  always  be  the  warfare  of  commerce 
for  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  it  will  be  tem- 
pered with  avarice,  not  mercy;  and  commercial 
warfare  will  become  more  and  more  severe  as  the 
nations  grow,  and  as  competition,  with  want  and 
hunger  behind  it,  gets  keen  as  the  sword-edge 
with  the  crowding  of  people  into  the  narrow  world. 

Unchanging  Human  Nature 

Human  nature  is  the  same  today  as  it  was  in 
the  ante-rebellion  days  of  human  slavery.  It  is 
the  same  as  it  was  when  Napoleon,  with  the  will- 
o'-the-wisp  of  personal  and  national  glory  held 
before  the  eyes  of  emotional  and  impressionable 
Frenchmen,  led  them  to  wreck  for  him  the  mon- 
archies of  Europe.  Human  nature  is  the  same  to- 
day as  it  was  in  Caesar's  time,  when  he  massacred 
twi>  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  Germans — ^men, 
women,  and  children — in  a  day,  in  cold  blood, 
while  negotiations  for  peace  were  pending,  and  en- 
tered in  his  diary  the  simple  statement,  ''Caesar's 
legions  killed  them  all."  Human  nature  is  the 
same  today  as  it  was  in  the  cruel  old  times,  when 
war  was  the  chief  business  of  mankind,  and  popu- 
lations sold  as  slaves  were  among  the  most  profit- 
able plunder.    Yes,  human  nature  is  the  same 

[40] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WARf. 

as  it  has  always  been.  Education  and  Christian 
teaching  have  made  pity  and  sympathy  more  fa- 
miliar to  the  human  heart,  but  avarice  and  the  old 
fighting  spirit  are  kept  in  leash  only  by  the  domi- 
nance of  necessity  and  circumstances,  which  the 
institutions  of  civilization  impose  upon  the  indi- 
vidual. 

The  following  is  quoted  from  "Origins  and 
Destiny  of  Imperial  Britain,'*  by  the  late  Pro- 
fessor J.  A.  Cramb : 

**War  may  change  its  shape,  the  struggle  here 
intensifying  it,  there  abating  it;  it  may  he  up- 
lifted by  ever  loftier  purposes  and  nobler  causes. 
But  cease?   How  shall  it  cease? 

*' Indeed,  in  the  light  of  history,  universal  peace 
appears  less  as  a  dream  than  as  a  nightmare, 
which  shall  be  realized  only  when  the  ice  has  crept 
to  the  heart  of  the  sun,  and  the  stars,  left  black 
and  trackless,  start  from  their  orbits." 

Max  Miiller  has  told  us  that  the  roots  of  some 
of  our  words  are  older  than  the  Egyptian  Pyra- 
mids. Far  older  still  are  the  essential  traits  of 
human  nature.  The  human  nature  of  today  will 
be  the  human  nature  of  tomorrow,  and  the  human 
nature  of  tomorrow  will  be  in  all  essential  respects 
the  same  as  it  was  in  ancient  Rome,  Persia,  and 
Egypt,  and  even  in  the  palmy  days  of  sea-sunk 
Atlantis. 

[41] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

The  best  of  us  are  at  heart  barbarians  under 
a  thin  veneer  of  civilization,  and  it  is  as  natural 
for  us  to  revert  to  barbarous  war  as  for  the  hog 
to  return  to  his  wallow. 

If  we  were  able  to  apply  to  the  upbuilding  of 
our  Army  and  Navy  the  money  that  goes  to  politi- 
cal graft  throughout  the  country,  and  the  money 
that  has  been  squandered,  and  is  still  being  squan- 
dered through  our  notorious  vote-purchasing  pen- 
sions, we  could  place  ourselves  upon  a  war  footing 
that  would  be  an  absolute  guarantee  of  permanent 
peace.  It  is  not,  therefore,  very  encouraging,  to 
enlarge  this  failing  system  of  laws,  in  order  to 
save  an  annual  expenditure  certainly  less  than 
what  the  defects  of  our  laws  now  cost  the  country. 

Even  though  international  wars  may  be  pre- 
vented by  a  court  of  arbitration,  can  rebellion  and 
civil  war  be  prevented,  and  ought  they  always  to 
be  prevented? 

Justifiable  Wabs 

When  the  unjust  laws  of  an  iniquitous  govern- 
ment make  existence  intolerable  for  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  of  a  country  or  of  a  colonial  pos- 
session; ''when  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it 
becomes  necessary"  for  a  people  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  of  oppression,  as  we  did  in  our  War  of  the 
Revolution,  or  as  the  French  people  did  in  the 
French  Revolution,  or  as  the  great  Chinese  peo- 

£42] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

pie  have  lately  done  by  their  rebellion  against  the 
domination  of  an  intolerable  savage  Manchu  mon- 
archy, then  war  is  the  only  remedy,  and  freedom 
can  then  plead  only  with  the  sword. 

I  quote  the  following  from  Theodore  Roosevelt's 
"America  and  the  World  War": 

*'In  1864  there  were  in  the  North  some  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  men  who  praised  peace  as 
the  supreme  end,  as  a  good  more  important  than 
all  other  goods,  and  who  denounced  ivar  as  the 
worst  of  all  evils.  These  men  one  and  all  as- 
sailed and  denounced  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  all 
voted  against  him  for  President,  Moreover,  at 
that  time  there  were  many  individuals  in  England 
and  France  who  said  it  was  the  duty  of  those  two 
nations  to  mediate  between  the  North  and  the 
South,  so  as  to  stop  the  terrible  loss  of  life  and 
destruction  of  property  which  attended  our  Civil 
War;  and  they  asserted  that  any  Americans  who 
in  such  event  refused  to  accept  their  mediation 
and  to  stop  the  war  would  thereby  show  them- 
selves the  enemies  of  peace.  Nevertheless,  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  and  the  men  bach  of  him  by  their 
attitude  prevented  all  such  effort  at  mediation, 
declaring  that  they  would  regard  it  as  an  un- 
friendly act  to  the  United  States.  Looking  back 
from  a  distance  of  fifty  years,  we  can  now  see 
clearly  that  Abraham  Lincoln  and  his  supporters 
were  right.    Such  mediation  would  have  been  a 

[43] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

hostile  act,  not  only  to  the  United  States  hut  to 
humanity.  The  men  who  clamored  for  un- 
righteous peace  fifty  years  ago  this  fall  were  the 
enemies  of  mankind." 

Those  who  are  oppressed  by  the  superincum- 
bent weight  of  society,  and  labor  for  mere  exist- 
ence, with  no  hope  of  freedom  from  poverty,  are 
slaves  as  much  as  were  those  made  bondsmen  in 
old-time  wars.  It  matters  little  whether  the  wolf 
at  the  door  be  a  creature  of  sociological  condi- 
tions, or  a  creature  of  war.  The  evil  is  no  less 
real. 

James  Eussell  Lowell,  in  his  admirable  poem  on 
France  and  the  French  Eevolution,  said  about  the 
most  expressive,  the  most  potential,  and  alto- 
gether the  best  thing  that  has  ever  been  said  illus- 
trative of  the  uncontrollable  massiveness  of  the 
popular  will,  which,  under  the  stimulus  of  pa- 
triotism or  the  smart  or  burden  of  accumulated 
wrongs,  can  stampede  a  nation  into  war: 

*'As,  flake  by  flake,  the  beetling  avalanches 

Build  up  their  imminent  crags  of  noiseless  snow, 
Till  some  chance  thrill  the  loosened  ruin  launches 

And  the  blind  havoc  leaps  unwarned  below, 
So  grew  and  gathered  through  the  silent  years 

The  madness  of  a  People,  wrong  by  wrong. 
There  seemed  no  strength  in  the  dumb  toiler's 
tears, 

[44] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

No  strength  in  suffering; — but  the  Past  was 
strong  : 
The  brute  despair  of  trampled  centuries 
Leapt  up  with  one  hoarse  yell  and  snapt  its 

bands, 
Groped  for  its  rights  with  horny,  callous  hands, 
And  stared  around  for  God  with  bloodshot  eyes.'* 

The  justification  of  war  depends  entirely  upon 
the  conditions  which  produce  it.  In  short,  war  is 
justifiable  only  when  it  is  a  remedy  for  evils 
greater  than  the  evils  of  the  war.  War  is  some- 
times a  very  bitter  remedy;  nevertheless,  there 
are  diseases  much  worse  than  the  remedy.  The 
horrors  of  the  French  Revolution,  bad  as  they 
were,  remedied  a  condition  still  more  horrible,  for 
the  condition  of  the  French  common  people, 
* '  bowed  by  the  weight  of  centuries, ' '  had  become 
so  abject  that  life  was  intolerable;  no  change 
could  be  for  the  worse.  Under  such  circumstances 
there  is  no  fear  of  death*;  the  fear  of  death  is  only 
fear  of  the  loss  of  life  through  love  of  life.  When 
existence  is  intolerable,  and  there  is  no  hope  in 
the  heart  for  better  things,  life,  having  no  value, 
is  not  much  loved,  and  death  has  no  terrors. 

In  spite  of  all  the  bloodshed  of  the  reign  of 
terror,  in  spite  of  all  who  fell  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Napoleon,  the  French  people  were  bene- 
fited by  the  Eevolution  a  thousand-fold  more  than 
they  were  injured  by  it. 

[45] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

K  arbitration  could  prevent  such  wars,  which 
are  man's  God-given  privilege  that  a  people  may 
secure  its  inalienable  rights,  then  arbitration,  in 
that  respect,  would  be  an  iniquitous  thing. 

War,  at  best,  is  a  horrible  business.  It  is  a 
reversion  to  the  brute  force  of  primitive  savagery, 
and  is  never  justifiable  except  in  the  extremity 
of  last  resort.  But  we  must  appreciate  and  ac- 
knowledge the  fact  that  the  horrors  of  war,  the 
sacrifice  of  treasure,  the  sacrifice  of  life,  are  no 
arguments  whatever  against  war  when  inalienable 
human  rights  are  at  stake  that  must  be  fought 
for,  and  that  are  worth  the  sacrifice. 

There  are  at  times  objects  and  obligations  which 
are  worth  the  sacrifice.  To  prevent  war  in  such 
cases  would  be  a  disgrace  and  a  crime. 

As  Admiral  Mahan  says,  ''Even  the  material 
evils  of  war  are  less  than  the  moral  evil  of  com- 
pliance with  wrong.'* 

Christianity  and  Was 

In  1901,  the  editor  of  The  Christian  Herald 
requested  me  to  write  an  article  in  answer  to  the 
following  question:  **Is  it  consistent  for  a  loyal 
Christian,  who  believes  that  war  is  contrary  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  to  engage  in 
the  manufacture  of  material  designed  exclusively 
for  the  purpose  of  war?" 

In  my  reply,  I  pointed  out  that  the  great  ma- 
[46] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

jority  of  Christians  throughout  the  world,  while 
they  hate  war,  are  often  called  upon  themselves 
to  become  warriors  and  to  fight  for  their  doctrine 
of  peace.  The  Rev.  T.  De  Witt  Talmage  was 
chosen  to  reply  to  my  article,  which  he  did  by 
agreeing  with  all  I  had  said. 

According  to  the  annals  of  history,  wars  have 
almost  invariably  been  caused  by  one  party  at- 
tempting to  rob  another  party,  or  one  people  an- 
other people.  On  such  occasions,  it  is  self-evident 
that  the  blame  for  the  wars  rested  with  the  rob- 
bers. Those  who  fought  in  defense  of  their  lives 
and  property,  although  actual  participants  in 
warfare,  were  guiltless. 

Of  course,  the  attempt  to  rob  and  plunder  has 
sometimes  been  mutual,  and  both  participants 
have  been  aggressors,  as  were  Napoleon  and 
Alexander  in  the  Russian  war.  In  the  great  ma- 
jority of  cases,  however,  one  side  has  been  on  the 
aggressive,  and  the  other  on  the  defensive. 

When  an  oflScer  of  the  law  catches  an  evil-doer 
in  the  act,  and  is  attacked  by  him,  if,  in  making 
an  arrest,  the  oflBcer  is  compelled  to  draw  his  own 
revolver  and  shoot  the  malefactor,  he  does  a  justi- 
fiable act.  We  have  here  war  in  miniature,  and 
it  may  be  taken  as  a  type  of  all  wars.  While  we 
are  free  to  grant  that  wars  are  wrong,  yet  the 
wrong  rests  entirely  with  the  offenders,  instead 
of  with  the  defenders,  of  human  right. 

Housebreaking  is  wrong,  yet  the  brave  knight 
[47] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

who,  in  mediaeval  times,  breached  a  castle  wall  to 
free  some  prisoner  unjustly  held,  did  a  wholly 
commendable  act.  Similarly,  one  nation  which 
raises  an  army  to  free  from  bondage  slaves  held 
by  another  nation,  does  an  equally  commendable 
act,  and  the  blame  for  the  war  rests  with  those 
who  hold  the  slaves. 

War  is  an  ugly  and  an  awful  thing,  while  some 
peace  theories  are  very  beautiful,  and  they  are 
quite  safe  in  times  of  peace ;  but  when,  in  the  past, 
slaves  had  to  be  freed,  then  the  true  Christians 
took  down  their  old  swords  and  shouldered  their 
old  guns,  and  went  to  the  front.  If  we  read  the 
inscriptions  on  the  monuments  erected  to  the 
memory  of  those  who  died  in  our  great  Civil  War, 
we  find  it  was  an  army  of  Christians  who  fell. 

War  is  often  a  necessity.  It  cannot  always  be 
avoided,  and,  when  it  comes,  we  want  the  best 
tools  we  can  get  with  which  to  fight.  It  is  criminal 
negligence  for  a  nation  not  to  be  prepared  against 
war.  It  is  criminal  negligence  for  a  great  nation 
not  to  be  abreast  of  the  times  in  arms  and  equip- 
ment. 

Often  at  the  bayonet's  point,  trade  and  civiliza- 
tion and  even  Christianity,  have  been  forced  upon 
the  savage,  and  upon  exclusive  and  unwarlike 
peoples,  and  now  Christianity,  civilization,  and 
militarism,  sisters  of  strange  relation,  hand  in 
hand,  embrace  the  world. 

In  ** Sartor  Resartus'*  Carlyle  says: 
[48] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

"The  first  ground  handful  of  nitre ^  sulphur, 
and  charcoal  drove  Monk  Schwartz's  pestle 
through  the  ceiling.    What  will  the  last  dof* 


His  o"WTi  answer  is  that  it  will 

".  .  .  achieve  the  final  undisputed  prostration 
of  force  under  thought,  of  animal  courage  under 
spiritual.** 

Again  Carlyle  says,  in  the  same  work : 

**Such  I  hold  to  he  the  genuine  use  of  gun- 
powder: that  it  makes  all  men  alike  tall.  Nay,  if 
thou  he  cooler,  cleverer  than  I,  if  thou  have  more 
mind,  though  all  hut  no  hody  whatever,  then  canst 
thou  kill  me  first,  and  art  the  taller.  Herehy,  at 
last  is  the  Goliath  powerless  and  the  David  resist- 
less; savage  animalism  is  nothing,  inventive 
spiritualism  is  all.'* 

What  does  the  Bible  say  about  Christ's  mission 
of  peace ! 

"And  suddenly  there  was  with  the  angel  a  mul- 
titude of  the  heavenly  host  praising  God  and  say- 
ing, Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth 
peace,  good  will  toward  men"  (Luke  II :  13, 14). 

[49] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

*'And  thou,  child,  shalt  he  called  the  Prophet  of 
the  Highest  .  .  .  to  guide  our  feet  into  the  way 
of  peace"  (Luhe  1 :  76,  79). 

''And  his  name  shall  he  called  .  .  .  The  Prince 
of  Peace"  (Is.  IX:  6). 

I  hold  that  there  is  nothing  whatever  in  the  fore- 
going quotations  inconsistent  with  warring  for  the 
right.  From  the  nature  ,of  things,  war  is  often 
the  price  of  peace,  and  justice  can  only  be  en- 
forced by  the  sword.  In  the  great  American  Ee- 
bellion  it  was  the  voice  of  guns  alone  that  could 
command  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves. 

An  apostle  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  may  often 
best  serve  his  Master  by  becoming  a  good  soldier. 
The  Christian  armies  that  turned  back  and  drove 
out  of  Europe  the  invading  Moors  rendered  their 
Master  better  service  than  had  they,  in  order  to 
escape  war,  fled  before  the  advancing  hosts  of 
Islam. 

Should  China  and  India  become  really  aroused 
and  advance  during  the  next  twenty-five  years  as 
rapidly  as  has  Japan  during  a  like  period  in  the 
past,  and  should  the  great  "YeUow  Peril"  rise 
in  its  might,  and  threaten  the  Christian  World,  is 
there  a  single  soldier  of  the  Cross  now  enlisted  in 
the  cause  of  Peace  who  would  not  then  buckle  on 
his  cartridge-belt,  shoulder  his  gun,  and  go  and 
fight  in  the  defense  of  his  religion  and  his  home? 

[50] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

I  must  confess  my  belief  that,  if  invasion  were 
threatened  on  the  Atlantic  Coast,  some  of  the 
pacifists  I  have  met  wonld  not  buckle  on  the  car- 
tridge-belt, b^t  would,  on  the  contrary,  gird  up 
their  loins,  take  the  advice  of  Horace  Greeley,  and 
go  West. 

Let  us  again  quote  from  the  Scriptures : 

''The  Lord  is  a  man  of  war"  (Ex.  XV  :3), 

"The  Lord  of  Hosts  is  his  name"  (Is.  LI  :15), 

"Blessed  he  the  Lord  my  strength,  which 
teacheth  my  hands  to  war,  and  my  fingers  to  fight" 
(Ps.  CXLIV  :1). 

It  is  evident  that  the  modem  Christian  mis- 
understands Christ's  true  mission,  for  he  said: 

"Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on 
earth:  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword" 
(Matt.  X:34). 

"I  am  come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth"  (Luke 
XII :  49). 

"And  he  that  hath  no  sword,  let  him  sell  his  gar- 
ment and  buy  one.  .  .  .  for  the  things  concerning 
me  have  an  end"  (Luke  XXII :  36, 37), 

[51] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 
St.  Paul  said: 

*'For  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good. 
But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he 
beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain;  for  he  is  the  min- 
ister of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon 
him  that  doeth  evil"  (Rom.  XIII  :4), 

Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  who  is  one  of  the  best  of 
America's  big  men,  and  one  of  the  biggest  of 
America's  best  men,  has  the  following  to  say 
about  war : 

''/  am  not,  therefore,  one  of  those  who  think 
that  war  is  always  wrong.  I  cannot  think  that 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  inculcated  the  doctrine  that 
force  never  could  be  used — He  who,  when  He  saw 
the  traders  in  the  Temple,  did  not  wait  to  argu^ 
with  them  nor  to  appeal  to  their  conscience,  for 
He  knew  that  they  had  neither  reason  nor  con- 
science, but  drove  them  out  with  a  whip  of  small 
cords,  driving  the  cattle  before  Him  and  over- 
turning the  tables  of  the  money-changers  and  let- 
ting the  money  roll  upon  the  floor,  I  am  not 
afraid  to  follow  Him  with  whatsoever  force  it  may 
he  necessary  for  righteousness  to  put  on,  when 
unrighteousness  has  armed  herself  to  commit 
wrong.  I  cannot  think  all  war  is  wrong.  If  I  did, 
I  should  not  want  to  look  upon  a  Bunker  Hill 
Monument,  for  it  would  be  a  monument  to  our 

[52] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

shame;  I  should  want  never  to  speak  the  name  of 
Gettysburg,  for  my  lips  would  blister  and  my 
cheeks  would  blush;  I  should  want  to  bury  in  the 
grave  of  oblivion  the  names  of  Washington  and 
Grant,'' 

There  can  be  but  one  interpretation  of  Chris- 
tian duty  and  but  one  interpretation  of  true  peace. 
Without  justice,  the  mere  absence  of  war  does  not 
constitute  peace  to  the  Christian.  Neither  to  the 
Christian  is  warfare  waged  in  the  interest  of 
justice  incompatible  with  the  peace  principles 
which  underlie  his  religious  faith.  Therefore,  the 
true  interpretation  of  peace  is  absence  of  war, 
where  justice  reigns,  and  the  true  Christian  mis- 
sion is  to  see  that  justice  be  done,  for  without 
it  there  can  be  no  righteous  peace.  Such  peace  as 
can  reign  with  injustice  becomes  the  abettor  of 
injustice. 

While  I  believe  in  international  conciliation  and 
arbitration,  peace  and  good  will,  I  do  not  believe 
in  unlimited  arbitration.  I  do  not  believe  that 
arbitration  can  ever  be  a  universal  panacea  with 
which  all  evils  can  be  cured  without  resort  to 
firearms.  There  are  times  when  throats  have  to 
be  cut,  and  when  God  is  on  the  side  of  the  execu- 
tioner. 

When  a  nation  persists  perennially  in  war,  it 
can  only  be  brought  to  peace  by  some  other  na- 
tion which  will  meet  it  on  the  battlefield.    Christ 

[53] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

established  the  dictum  that  they  who  take  the 
sword  shall  perish  by  the  sword.  War  begets 
war.  The  sword  brings  the  sword.  As  Napoleon 
said  about  sparing  murderers  and  abolishing  capi- 
tal punishment,  ^ '  Que  messieurs  les  assassins  com- 
mencent." 

We  want  to  put  a  stop  to  wars  to  save  life.  I 
wonder  why  it  is  that  we  are  not  equally  anxious 
to  prevent  loss  of  life  from  other  causes  besides 
war.  Why  are  we  not  equally  interested  in  pre- 
venting the  tremendous  loss  of  life  from  easily 
preventable  railroad  disasters  f  An  international 
movement  for  safety  equipment  and  sanitation, 
with  an  enlistment  of  effort  and  money  equal  to 
that  being  devoted  to  this  great  peace  movement 
would  save  many  more  lives  every  year  than  the 
annual  loss  in  the  Napoleonic  wars. 

Dr.  Strong,  President  of  the  American  Institute 
of  Social  Service,  stated  at  a  dinner  several  years 
ago,  that  the  number  of  persons  killed  and 
wounded  every  year  in  the  United  States  alone  by 
railroad  accidents,  steamship  accidents,  workshop 
accidents,  accidents  in  the  streets,  and  other  acci- 
dents— all  very  largely  due  to  preventable  causes 
— amounts  to  more  than  500,000.  In  the  Japanese- 
Russian  war  a  total  of  333,786  men  were  killed 
and  wounded  on  both  sides,  not  counting  the  losses 
in  naval  battles.  During  the  same  period  in  the 
United  States  alone  the  great  army  of  American 
laborers  engaged  in  manufacturing  and  building 

[54] 


CAN  LAW  BE  SUBSTITUTED  FOR  WAR? 

operations  suffered  a  loss  of  425,000  killed  and 
injured;  92,000  more  were  therefore  killed  and 
injured  in  our  industries  in  one  year  than  during 
that  entire  war. 

I  wonder  why  it  is  that  we  are  not  as  enthu- 
siastic in  this  social-service  work  as  we  are  in 
attacking  the  problem  of  war.  Is  it  that  there  is 
more  glory  and  more  that  appeals  to  the  martial 
imagination  in  attacking  war  and  warriors  than 
there  is  in  the  prosaic,  tame,  and  glamourless 
enterprise  of  simply  saving  human  life  in  peace- 
ful pursuits  for  the  mere  sake  of  saving  it?  Is  it 
the  old  war  spirit  in  the  breasts  of  the  peace  men 
that  moves  them?  Are  they  fighters,  too?  In  at- 
tacking war,  do  they  feel  that  they  are  somehow 
identified  with  the  pomp  and  circumstance  of 
glorious  war? 


[55] 


CHAPTER  m 
OUR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

"  If  you  want  war,  nourish  a  doctrine.    Doctrines  are  the  most 
frightful  tyrants  to  which  men  ever  are  subject,  because  doctrines 
get  inside  of  a  man's  own  reason  and  betray  him  against  himself." 
William  Cfraham  Sumner,  "  J7ar  and  Other  Essays." 

A  DOCTRINE  is  a  creed,  usually  mandatory, 
framed  by  one  person  or  set  of  persons, 
for  the  belief  or  conduct  of  another  person 
or  set  of  persons.  A  doctrine  is  not  necessarily 
based  upon  principles  of  right,  equity,  justice,  or 
even  expediency. 

Doctrines  are  directions  written  on  the  guide- 
boards  of  fanaticism.  An  exact  truth  is  never 
proclaimed  as  a  doctrine :  there  is  no  doctrine  of 
mathematics. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  pledged  the 
United  States  to  defend  American  republican  in- 
stitutions, north  and  south,  against  monarchical 
encroachments  from  the  Old  World,  with  the 
dependable  support  of  England,  was  proclaimed 
in  1823,  mainly  in  response  to  a  Continental  doc- 
trine called  the  Holy  Alliance,  formed  in  1815 
by  and  between  Austria,  Russia,  Prussia,  and 
France.    The  Holy  Alliance  was  in  effect  a  sys- 

[56] 


OVR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

tern  of  mutual  political  monarchical  insurance, 
under  which  the  forces  of  the  allied  Powers  could 
be  used  to  subdue  revolution  against  the  institu- 
tion of  kingship. 

The  French  Revolution,  followed  by  the  demo- 
cratic empire  of  Napoleon,  had  severely  shaken 
the  old  intolerant  and  intolerable  order  of  things. 
The  Holy  Alliance  was  an  expedient  of  the  old 
order  to  insure  itself  against  democratic  institu- 
tions. 

A  revolution  in  Spain  in  1820  was  promptly 
suppressed  by  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  the  Spanish 
people,  who  had  raised  their  heads  and  begun  to 
look  around  for  freedom,  were  again  bowed  under 
the  yoke  of  the  detested  Bourbons.  The  Holy  Al- 
liance was  surely  a  most  unholy  alliance. 

Eussia,  by  a  ukase  in  1821,  claimed  the  right  to 
keep  the  vessels  of  all  other  Powers  out  of  the 
North  Pacific  Ocean.  That  was  a  Russian  "Mon- 
roe Doctrine"  which  helped  to  make  Monroe  a 
doctrinaire. 

In  1823  Spain  lost,  through  revolutions,  all  of 
her  American  possessions  except  Cuba  and  Porto 
Bico,  and  Portugal  had  lost  Brazil.  France  had 
lost  the  island  of  Haiti. 

The  United  States  naturally  sympathized  with 
the  newly-formed  states  built  on  the  ruins  of  the 
Spanish  and  Portuguese  empires.  They  had 
mostly  adopted  republican  institutions,  becoming 
sisters  of  the  great  northern  republic. 

[57] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

James  Monroe  was  not  the  father  of  the  child 
named  for  him,  for  the  actual  formulator  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  was  John  Quincy  Adams,  at  that 
time  Secretary  of  State,  who  got  the  cne  from 
Oeorge  Canning. 

England  wanted  unrestricted  trade  with  the 
Spanish- American  countries;  she  had  no  need  of 
additional  territory  on  the  American  continent, 
but  she  saw  danger  in  its  acquisition  by  other  na- 
tions. George  Canning  tried  four  times  in  1823 
to  get  the  United  States  to  join  England  in  her 
declaration  of  the  open-door  policy.  Monroe  fa- 
vored the  proposal,  but  finally  Adams  convinced 
the  President  that  it  would  be  better  to  avoid  any 
entangling  arrangement  with  England,  and  to 
stand  alone. 

On  the  second  of  December,  1823,  in  his  annual 
message  to  Congress,  President  Monroe  made  the 
following  declaration  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States : 

"The  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  in- 
dependent condition  which  they  have  assumed  and 
maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as 
subjects  for  future  colonization  by  European 
powers.  .  .  .  We  should  consider  any  attempt 
on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  por- 
tion of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace 
and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  de- 
pendencies of  any  European  power  we  have  not 

[58] 


OVR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

interfered  and  shall  not  interfere.  But  mth  the 
governments  who  have  declared  their  indepen- 
dence and  maintained  it,  and  whose  independence 
we  have,  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  prin- 
ciples, acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  in- 
terposition for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  or 
controlling,  in  any  other  manner,  their  destiny, 
by  any  European  power,  in  any  other  light  than 
as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition 
toward  the  United  States.** 

Such  was  the  birth  of  the  famous  Monroe  Doc- 
trine. Its  recognition  by  England  made  it  ef- 
fective. The  Monroe  Doctrine  has  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  international  law.  It  is  simply  an 
expression  of  British  national  policy  for  the 
United  States. 

Our  diplomacy,  being  a  branch  of  our  politics, 
is  often  inconsistent  with  our  national  policy. 
American  justification  for  the  doctrine  appears 
to  have  been  mainly  dependent  upon  the  fact  that 
we  had  no  intentions  of  encroaching  upon  the 
spheres  of  influence  of  any  of  the  nations  of  the 
Old  World,  but  that  we  intended  to  safeguard 
what  we  conceived  to  be  our  legitimate  sphere  of 
influence. 

The  American  Republic  was  very  young  when 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  proclaimed — a  doctrine 
which,  as  one  writer  has  said,  is  "the  most  mag- 

[59] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

nificent  bluff  in  all  history,  and  so  far  the  most 
successful.'* 

During  the  American  Civil  War,  France,  with 
the  connivance  of  England,  conceived  the  plan  of 
establishing  in  Mexico  the  empire  of  Maximilian. 
We  were  too  busy  at  the  time,  settling  some  little 
differences  of  opinion  within  our  family  of 
states,  to  exact  recognition  of  our  protest.  After 
the  memorable  exchange  of  compliments  and 
courtesies  between  Grant  and  Lee  at  Appomattox, 
however,  Uncle  Sam  indicated  to  Napoleon  the 
Little  that  the  Imperialists  must  be  kicked  out. 
Lacking  the  support  of  France,  they  were  kicked 
out  by  the  Mexicans. 

While  through  the  Monroe  Doctrine  the  United 
States  served  notice  on  the  nations  of  the  Old 
World  to  keep  hands  off  the  American  continent, 
the  doctrine  at  the  same  time  constituted  an  im- 
plied promise  on  our  part  to  keep  hands  off  any 
territory  beyond  the  confines  of  America.  So 
long  as  the  policies  of  Great  Britain  did  not  run 
counter  to  our  Monroe  Doctrine,  it  was  destined 
to  be  quite  effective  in  preventing  land-grabbing 
on  the  American  continent  by  other  European 
Powers,  But  the  Monroe  Doctrine  possesses  an 
innate  dog-in-the-manger  aspect,  certain  some  day 
to  bring  trouble,  for  the  great  nations  of  the  world 
have  far  outgrown  the  expectations  of  our  fore- 
fathers; their  commerce  has  become  an  insepa- 
rable part  of  the  commerce  of  South  American 

[60] 


c 
S 

0) 

Q 


0) 

in 

<D 

■*-> 
(0 

g 

O 

<u 

c 

'S 
o 
o 

Q 
o 

9 

c 
o 


T3 

•♦— 

_c 

c 

o 

2? 

Q 


CO 

> 

(D 


OUR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

countries,  and  their  interests  in  like  measure 
have  become  identified  with  the  interests  of  those 
countries.  Just  to  the  extent  that  their  welfare 
and  the  welfare  of  the  South  American  republics 
become  mutual  are  they  likely  to  be  brought  into 
collision  with  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and,  when  the 
collision  comes,  it  means  war,  unless  the  United 
States  abandons  that  doctrine. 

Our  self-assumed  protectorate  over  the  South 
American  republics  is  not  welcomed  by  those 
countries.  They  resent  our  arrogance.  "We  have 
never  cultivated  trade  with  them,  nor  joined  them 
in  the  development  of  their  industries,  and  have 
never  financed  their  enterprises.  Even  when  an 
American  citizen  has  paid  a  visit  to  a  South  Amer- 
ican country,  he  has  first  found  it  necessary  to  go 
to  England  and  take  ship  from  there. 

The  European  countries,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  promoted  business  relations  with  the  South 
American  republics,  have  supplied  them  with 
working  capital  and  cultivated  their  friendship, 
confidence,  and  respect,  while  we  have  done  noth- 
ing of  the  sort. 

The  citizens  of  the  United  States  whom  the 
South  Americans  have  seen  in  their  dominions 
have  usually  been  adventurous,  irresponsible  for- 
tune-hunters. Their  trouble-breeding  propensi- 
ties have  not  tended  to  foster  amicable  feeling 
between  the  great  Republic  of  the  North  and  her 
Southern  sisters. 

[61] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

So  long  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  did  not  cir- 
cumscribe the  ambitions  of  the  United  States  the 
institution  possessed  some  semblance  of  vitality; 
but,  when  the  explosion  came  that  blew  up  the 
Maine,  it  also  exploded  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  for 
immediately  the  United  States,  abandoning  its 
time-honored  policy  of  keeping  within  American 
confines,  and  out  of  entangling  alliances  and  com- 
plications with  other  nations,  reached  out  a  grasp- 
ing hand  and  seized  upon  the  Far  Pacific  posses- 
sions of  Spain,  right  at  the  door  of  China  and 
within  the  legitimate  sphere  of  influence  of  Japan. 
Yet,  curiously  enough,  we  still  adhere  to  the  old 
proclamation,  America  for  the  Americans,  ob- 
livious of  the  equal  right  of  China  and  Japan  to 
proclaim,  Asia  for  the  Asiatics. 

Several  years  ago,  I  spoke  at  a  luncheon  of 
the  Twentieth  Century  Club  in  Boston.  I  was 
seated  beside  a  noted  Japanese  diplomat.  He 
said,  ''Mr.  Maxim,  you  have  a  Monroe  Doctrine 
— America  for  the  Americans;  we  also  have  a 
similar  doctrine — Asia  for  the  Asiatics;  but  we 
are  not  ready  to  enforce  ours  yet,  and  you  are  not 
ready,  and  are  not  likely  to  be  ready,  to  enforce 
yours.  A  little  later,  we  shall  inquire  by  what 
logic  you  can  proclaim  America  for  the  Ameri- 
cans, and  disclaim  our  right  equally  to  proclaim 
Asia  for  the  Asiatics.'* 

The  Japanese  are  a  far-seeing  and  a  patient 
people.    They  know  how  to  wait,  but  they  know 

[62] 


OVR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

also  when  to  strike,  and  how  to  strike  with  the 
force  of  a  Jovian  thunderbolt.  They  are  no 
longer  merely  a  cute  little  picture-book  people. 
They  have  risen  with  stupendous  strides  into  a 
very  eminent  position  as  a  World-Power,  a  Power 
to  be  reckoned  with.  They  are  different  from  us, 
but  we  have  no  right  to  consider  them  our  in- 
feriors. They  may  very  possibly  prove  to  be  our 
superiors.  A  government  of  the  people  and  for 
the  people  is  a  failure  if  the  government  does  not 
take  measures  for  the  adequate  defense  of  the 
people.  Self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  na- 
ture. Consequently,  it  is  a  law  which  must  be  ob- 
served as  the  chief  element  of  greatness. 

I  quote  the  following  from  "The  Valor  of  Igno- 
rance,'* by  General  Homer  Lea: 

'*How  unreasonable  is  it  to  expect  that  the 
combined  nations  of  Europe,  with  all  their  mili^ 
tary  strength,  shall  remain  restricted  to  one- 
twelfth  of  this  world's  land,  burrowed  into  and 
hewn  over  for  the  last  thousand  years,  while  this 
Republic,  without  armies,  shall  maintain  dominion 
over  one-half  the  unexploited  lands  of  the  world! 
Or  that  Japan,  possessed  of  two-thirds  the  popu- 
lation of  this  nation  and  a  military  organization 
fifty-fold  greater,  shall  continue  to  exist  on  her 
rocky  isles  that  are,  inclusive  of  Korea,  but  one- 
two-hundred-and- fiftieth    of   the   earth's    lands, 

[63] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

while  an  undefended  one-half  lies  under  the  guns 
of  her  battleships! 

•  •  •  •  •  •  • 

*'The  Monroe  Doctrine  is  Promethean  in  con- 
ception, but  not  so  in  execution.  It  was  pro- 
claimed in  order  to  avoid  wars;  now  it  invites 
them.  .  .  . 

"The  Monroe  Doctrine,  if  not  supported  by 
naval  and  military  power  sufficient  to  enforce  its 
observance  by  all  nations,  singly  and  in  coalition, 
becomes  a  factor  more  provocative  of  war  than 
any  other  national  policy  ever  attempted  in  mod- 
ern or  ancient  times,  .  .  .  Societies,  religions, 
unions,  business  men,  and  politicians  on  the  one 
hand,  spare  no  effort  to  debase  every  militant 
instinct  and  military  efficiency  or  preparation 
necessary  for  its  enforcement,  while,  on  the  other, 
they  demand  that  the  Chief  Executive  shall  assert 
to  the  entire  world  this  Republic's  intention  to 
maintain,  by  the  force  of  arms  if  necessary,  this 
most  warlike  and  encompassing  policy  ever  enun- 
ciated by  man  or  nation.'^ 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  did  not  require  that  any 
American  possessions  of  the  European  monarch- 
ies should  be  relinquished,  but  simply  that  they 
should  not  be  extended;  and  that,  if  relinquished 
or  lost,  they  should  not  be  re-established  as  mon- 
archical possessions. 

England,  being  in  possession  of  the  vast  domain 
[64] 


OUR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  Canada  in  North  America,  British  Honduras 
and  British  Guiana  in  South  America,  and  a 
goodly  number  of  the  West  Indian  islands,  was  in 
a  position  to  look  with  favor  on  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, because  in  the  event  of  Great  Britain  being 
defeated  in  war  by  any  of  the  Great  Powers,  her 
victor  or  victors  would  be  unable  to  seize  any  of 
her  American  possessions,  for  automatically  the 
United  States  would  become  an  ally  of  Great 
Britain,  and  would,  in  order  to  defend  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  have  to  defend  these  possessions. 

When  Sir  Charles  Tupper  was  High  Commis- 
sioner of  Canada,  the  writer  saw  him  in  London, 
and  suggested  to  him  that  it  would  be  a  good  idea 
for  the  Canadians  to  buy  some  automatic  guns.  He 
replied  that  Canada  was  very  peculiarly  situated ; 
that  she  could  not  be  attacked  successfully  by  any 
Power  unless  the  British  fleet  were  first  destroyed, 
which  was  not  likely,  and,  in  the  possible  event  of 
that  fleet  being  destroyed,  then  the  United  States 
would  be  obliged  to  defend  Canada  in  order  to  de- 
fend the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

The  peace  sophists  often  refer  to  the  unforti- 
fied border-line  between  the  United  States  and 
Canada  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  abolition 
of  armaments  throughout  the  world.  They  fail  to 
perceive  that  the  same  unarmed  condition  would 
not  work  between  European  countries,  as,  for 
example,  between  France  and  Germany.  If  the 
people  of  Canada  and  the  United  States  were  as 

[65] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

different  in  race,  language,  ideals,  and  ambitions 
as  are  the  French  and  Germans ;  and  if,  also,  the 
two  countries  were  as  thickly  settled  and  the  in- 
habitants as  land-hungry;  and  if  each  had  a  his- 
tory as  antagonistic  as  the  French  and  Germans ; 
then  fortifications  would  be  needed  on  the  Cana- 
dian border.  But  the  Canadians  and  ourselves 
are  of  the  same  race,  we  speak  the  same  tongue, 
we  have  similar  ideals  and  ambitions,  and  our 
history  is  not  antagonistic ;  on  the  contrary,  it  has 
been  largely  a  common  history— the  history  of 
England,  the  mother  country. 

England  and  France  were  obligated  to  defend 
Belgium  against  Germany.  Their  defenses  con- 
sisted mainly  in  bluff,  but  they  were,  nevertheless, 
far  better  prepared  to  support  Belgium  than  we 
would  be  to  support  any  South  American  country 
against  German  aggression. 

The  navy  of  England  is  so  far  superior  to  ours 
that  should  she  at  any  time  care  to  ignore  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  and  colonize  in  South  America 
we  should  be  absolutely  unable  to  prevent  her. 
She  would  be  able  to  isolate  us  from  South  Amer- 
ica and  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  within  the 
continental  territory  of  the  forty-eight  states.  An 
impenetrable  barrier  of  British  warships  would  lie 
between  us  and  the  Panama  Canal.  Therefore, 
it  will  be  seen  that  our  Monroe  Doctrine  is  an 
Anglo-American  compact,  an  entente,  which  we 
are  obliged  to  defend  if  it  should  be  in  the  interest 

[66] 


OVR  INCONSISTENT  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

of  Great  Britain,  and  which  Great  Britain  would 
not  be  obliged  to  observe  in  case  she  might  want 
to  ignore  it : 

Let  us  invite  Admiral  Mahan  to  conclude  this 
chapter : 

"/w  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  as  now  understood, 
and  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  Venezuela  incident, 
with  the  utterances  then  made  hy  our  statesmen  of 
all  parties,  we  have  on  hand  one  of  the  biggest 
contracts  any  modern  state  has  undertaken/* 


[67] 


CHAPTER  IV 

MODERN  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY  OF 

WAR 

"In  the  course  of  time,  no  one  knows  when  or  how  soon,  the 
family  of  nations  may  get  to  playing  at  cards,  and  beyond  the 
sea,  perhaps,  will  be  found  a  '  full  hand '  against  our  three  '  aces  * 
— the  Navy,  Oast  Fortifications,  and  the  Militia." 

Lieut.  Oen.  Adna  R.  Chaffee,  V.8.A. 

"  Whenever  a  nation's  attitude  toward  war  is  evasive,  its  con- 
duct indecisive,  and  its  preparation  an  indifferent,  orderless  as- 
Bembling  of  forces,  it  prepares  for  defeat." 

Homer  Lea, 

IN  the  Sunday  American  of  the  seventeenth  of 
January  of  this  year,  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie 
gave  expression  to  some  opinions  that  chal- 
lenge the  attention  of  all  thinking  people  of  our 
country  who,  in  this  trying  time  of  war,  are  be- 
coming aroused  and  are  asking  themselves  the 
question :  Are  we  adequately  prepared  against  the 
dread  eventuality  of  war,  and  if  not  adequately 
prepared,  why  not? 

There  is  no  person,  of  howsoever  humble  a 
,station,  whose  opinion  has  not  some  weight. 
Horace  Greeley — or  was  it  Henry  Ward  Beecher? 
— once  said  that  his  views  upon  a  very  important 
subject  underwent  a  material  change  from  conver- 

[68] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

sation  with  a  blacksmith  while  having  his  horse 
shod. 

The  opinion  of  Andrew  Carnegie,  the  greatest 
steel  and  iron  smith  the  world  has  ever  known,  is 
certain  to  have  great  weight  with  a  very  large 
number  of  persons,  whatever  the  subject  may  be 
upon  which  he  expresses  himself. 

The  world  owes  Andrew  Carnegie  a  debt  of  deep 
gratitude  for  many  most  munificent  and  beneficent 
actions,  and  our  gratitude  to  him  has  begotten 
love  for  him,  and  our  gratitude  and  our  love  beget 
our  sympathetic  attention  whenever  he  speaks.- 
Consequently,  when  Mr.  Carnegie  speaks  upon  the 
subject  of  our  national  defense,  he  is  bound  to  ex- 
ercise a  tremendous  power  for  good  or  evil,  and 
this  power  for  good  or  evil  is  directly  proportion- 
ate to  the  extent  that  his  opinions  are  right  or 
wrong. 

At  this  time,  the  question  of  our  national  de- 
fense is  one  of  so  serious  concern  that  anything  a 
well  and  favorably  known  man  says  may  have  a 
determining  effect  upon  the  minds  of  many  per- 
sons, and  thereby  be  fruitful  of  national  good 
or  national  harm. 

If  Mr.  Carnegie  is  right  in  his  belief  that  our 
best  defense  is  in  military  defenselessness,  then 
he  is  doing  the  country  a  great  service  through  the 
wide  publicity  given  to  his  opinions.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  is  in  the  wrong,  he  is  doing  this 
country  a  very  great  injury,  and  his  words  not 

[69] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

only  help  defeat  Congressional  appropriations  for 
building  more  guns,  but  also  help  to  spike  the  few 
guns  we  have. 

Let  us  first  consider  some  of  the  more  remark- 
able and  also  the  more  radical  of  his  statements. 
He  says,  to  quote: 

*'Not  one  of  the  great  nations  has  the  slightest 
desire  to  be  other  than  friendly  with  the  United 
States.  We  are  a  friend  to  all;  an  enemy  of  none. 
They  could  gain  nothing  by  a  war  with  us,  nor 
would  we  by  a  war  with  them.  We  have  no  ter- 
ritorial ambitions,  and  only  desire  to  be  left  alone. 

"As  for  this  foolish  talk  of  an  invasion,  that 
is  an  impossible  contingency.  Imagine  any  coun- 
try being  able  to  successfully  bring  enough  troops 
to  accomplish  anything  worth  while  from  a  mili- 
tary standpoint  from  a  point  three  thousand  miles 
off  and  attack  a  hundred  millions  of  people! 

'*I  have  always  said  that  if  at  any  time  any 
country  was  foolish  enough  to  attempt  invasion 
the  best  possible  plan  would  be  to  make  their 
landing  as  easy  as  possible,  point  out  to  them 
the  best  possible  roads,  and  allow  them  to  go  as 
far  as  they  desired  to  go  inland.  Then  warn  them 
to  look  out,  and  turn  a  million  of  our  16,000,000 
of  militia  loose  upon  them.  Getting  in  would  be 
easy,  but  how  to  get  out  would  result  in  sur- 
render. 

"There  is  no  other  country  in  the  world  so  well 
[70] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

equipped  to  repel  invasion  or  make  it  so  hot  for  an 
enemy  should  he  land  as  to  make  him  exceedingly 
sorry  he  ever  tried  it." 

The  foregoing  statements  of  Mr.  Carnegie  con- 
tain in  a  nutshell  the  whole  pith  and  gist  of  the 
present  anti-armament  peace  advocacy,  backed  by 
the  ten-million-dollar  Carnegie  foundation,  repre- 
senting an  income  of  half  a  million  dollars  a  year. 

Now,  if  it  happens  to  be  a  fact  that  these  views 
of  Mr.  Carnegie  and  his  coterie  of  peace  advo- 
cates are  wrong,  and  if  we  need  to  take  immediate 
and  radical  measures  for  our  national  defense, 
then  whenever  the  Carnegie  advocacy  prevents  a 
battery  of  guns  being  built,  the  resultant  injury 
to  the  country  is  as  great  as  though  a  battery  of 
our  guns  were  to  be  destroyed,  or  as  though  a  bat- 
tery of  guns  were  made  for  a  possible  enemy. 

Truly,  as  Mr.  Carnegie  states,  we  are  friendly 
to  other  nations,  and  we  do  not  want  any  of  their 
territory,  but  I  do  not  agree  with  him  that  we  have 
nothing  which  they  might  want,  for  we  are  both 
very  rich  and  very  defenseless,  and  the  history 
of  nations  has  shown  that  always  the  rich  and 
the  defenseless  sooner  or  later  become  the  prey 
of  the  poor  and  the  powerful. 

One  after  another  of  the  surrounding  nations 
will  likely  be  drawn  into  the  war  before  it  is  over. 
After  the  present  belligerents  have  settled  their 
scores  with  the  sword,  there  will  be  other  scores 

[71] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

to  be  settled  between  the  victors  and  the  neutral 
nations.  Differences  between  the  warring  and 
the  neutral  powers — differences  which,  in  time  of 
peace,  might  produce  very  strained  relations  or 
precipitate  war — ^may  now  be  lightly  passed  over 
as  mere  discourtesies.  But,  after  the  war,  some 
of  the  acts  of  the  neutrals  that  at  present  seem 
quite  insignificant  may  be  magnified  to  advantage 
as  casus  belli. 

It  is  my  opinion  that,  whichever  side  wins,  the 
United  States  will  likely  have  to  fight  the  winner 
within  a  short  time  after  the  war  is  over,  for 
neither  the  Germans  nor  the  Allies,  in  the  heat 
of  passion  that  now  dominates  them,  will  be  in  a 
mood  to  forgive  some  of  the  things  that  we  may 
feel  compelled  to  do  in  the  maintenance  of  our 
neutrality.  In  short,  the  things  that  we  may  be 
led  to  do  to  avoid  being  embroiled  in  the  present 
war  may  serve  to  embroil  us  with  the  victors,  un- 
less the  war  should  end  in  a  draw. 

Mr.  Carnegie  thinks  it  would  be  quite  a  difficult 
undertaking  for  a  foreign  nation  to  land  troops 
enough  on  our  shores  successfully  to  contend  with 
our  people.  Our  expert  army  and  navy  officers, 
who  have  been  educated  at  government  expense, 
and  who  are  supposed  to  know  about  such  mat- 
ters, tell  us  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  us  to 
mobilize  and  bring  to  the  front  more  than  30,000 
of  our  standing  Army  during  the  first  month ;  and 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  mobilize  and  get  our 

[72] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

militia  into  shape  to  resist  an  army  of  100,000  of 
the  well-trained  and  well-armed  troops  of  one 
of  the  Great  Powers,  inside  of  a  year  and  a 
half. 

Also,  our  naval  and  military  experts  tell  us 
that  it  would  require  not  only  months,  but  years, 
to  get  our  Navy  into  such  efficient  fighting  trim  as 
to  be  able  to  resist  the  navy  of  any  one  of  the 
leading  Great  Powers  of  the  world.  They  tell  us 
that  we  are  so  short  of  ammunition  that  we  might 
easily  exhaust  the  present  supply  in  the  first  four 
weeks  of  the  war,  and  possibly  in  the  first  few 
days  of  the  war. 

We  are  in  the  habit  of  speaking  of  our  Navy 
as  ranking  somewhere  second  or  third  from  the 
top.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  rank  much  lower 
than  that,  because  of  the  shortage  of  our  ammuni- 
tion supply.  Just  as  a  steam-engine  cannot  be 
run  without  fuel,  regardless  of  its  size  and  power, 
so  a  navy  cannot  be  run  without  gunpowder. 

When  the  present  war  broke  out,  France,  Ger- 
many, and  England  each  had  ten  times  as  much 
smokeless  powder  on  hand  as  we  had.  We  have 
between  forty  and  fifty  million  pounds  of  smoke- 
less powder  at  the  present  time,  whereas  we 
should  have  500,000,000  pounds. 

The  only  difficulty  in  landing  as  large  an  army 
as  an  enemy  might  desire  upon  our  shore,  would 
be  in  overcoming  our  fleet.  Once  our  fleet  were 
smashed,  an  enemy  could  land  a  hundred  thou- 

[73] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

sand  men,  either  on  our  Atlantic  or  on  our  Pacific 
seaboard,  long  before  we  could  mobilize  the  troops 
we  have.  In  fact,  a  quarter  of  a  million  men  could 
be  landed  before  we  could  get  the  troops  we  have 
into  fighting  shape. 

Let  us  examine  for  one  moment  Mr.  Carnegie 's 
proposition  to  welcome  an  army  of  invaders,  show- 
ing them  the  best  roads  to  the  interior,  and  then 
turning  lose  on  them  a  million  improvised  citi- 
zen soldiers.  Like  Pompey,  Mr.  Carnegie  seems 
to  believe  that  he  can  raise  an  army  at  will  by 
stamping  his  foot  upon  the  ground. 

Not  only  should  we  have  to  raise  the  million 
men,  but  also  we  should  have  to  provide  small 
arms,  Maxim  guns,  rapid-fire  field-cannon,  and 
siege  howitzers  for  them.  At  least  four  years' 
instruction  and  experience  in  the  use  of  these 
weapons  would  be  required ;  furthermore,  the  men 
would  have  to  be  imbued  with  the  courage  that 
veterans  have,  which  can  be  acquired  only  after 
much  experience  on  the  firing-line;  they  would 
have  to  be  officered  by  men  of  military  education 
and  training,  and  lastly,  they  would  need  large 
corps  of  trained  and  experienced  engineers,  and 
also  a  trained  commissariat. 

None  of  these  things  can  be  created  in  a  day,  or 
a  month,  or  made  efficient  in  a  year,  so  that  the 
army  of  invaders,  after  it  had  received  the  Car- 
negie welcome  and  had  taken  possession  of  the 
country,  would  have  quietly  to  wait  for  us  to  get 

[74] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

ready  to  swoop  down  on  them,  as  Mr.  Carnegie 
suggests. 

When  the  present  war  is  over,  should  one  of 
the  belligerent  nations,  with  its  veteran  fighting 
blood  up,  attack  us,  how  are  we  prepared  to  meet 
that  attack? 

Our  army  and  navy  men  tell  us  that  our  position 
is'  pathetically  defenseless.  They  tell  us  that, 
should  our  Navy  be  destroyed  or  evaded,  and  an 
army  of  only  a  hundred  thousand  men,  equipped 
with  all  of  the  arms  and  paraphernalia  of  modern 
warfare,  be  landed  on  our  coast,  the  invading 
army  could  go  anywhere  it  might  see  fit,  live  off 
the  country,  capture  our  big  cities,  and  hold  us 
up  for  ransom  in  spite  of  all  that  we  could 
do. 

What  could  we  do  ?  How  could  we  flee  ?  Where 
could  we  flee  I  We  simply  could  not  flee.  Most  of 
us  have  doubtless  thought  that  if  war  should  be 
declared,  we  would  seek  safety  in  the  interior. 
But  immediately  war  is  declared,  all  the  railroads 
and  all  automobiles  will  be  commandeered  for 
military  purposes.  All  banks  will  close.  All  se- 
curities will  be  rendered  worthless,  and  we,  re- 
duced to  penniless  hoboes,  will  be  compelled  to 
stay  right  here  and  face  the  music. 

Let  us  assume  merely  that  an  invading  army  of 
a  hundred  thousand  men  should  be  landed  near 
New  York.  Should  this  army  send  out  detach- 
ments to  capture  the  places  where  our  arms  and 

[75] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

munitions  of  war  are  made,  they  would  not  have 
far  to  go. 

A  Rich  Peize  fob  a  Hostile  Aemy 

They  would  find  the  smokeless  powder  works  of 
the  United  States  Army  and  the  Picatinny  Ar- 
senal, where  all  the  smokeless  powder  and  high 
explosives  of  the  United  States  Army  are  stored, 
near  Dover,  New  Jersey,  about  thirty-five  miles 
from  New  York;  also  they  would  find  there  the 
big  naval  depot  for  ammunition  and  explosives. 

At  Bridgeport,  Connecticut,  they  would  find  the 
Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Works,  and  the  Ameri- 
can and  British  Manufacturing  Company's  Works 
for  the  manufacture  of  rapid-fire  cannon,  and  at 
New  Haven  they  would  find  the  Winchester  Re- 
peating Arms  and  Cartridge  Company's  Works 
and  the  Marlin  Firearms  Works.  At  Springfield, 
Massachusetts,  they  would  find  the  Smith  and 
Wesson  Revolver  Works  and  also  the  United 
States  Arsenal,  where  our  rifles  are  made.  At 
Hartford,  Connecticut,  they  would  find  the  Colt 
Patent  Firearms,  and  the  Pratt  and  Whitney 
Works ;  at  Hion,  New  York,  the  Remington  Small 
Arms  Works,  and  at  Utica,  New  York,  the  Sav- 
age Arms  Works. 

They  would  find  one  of  our  most  important  big- 
gun  factories  at  Troy,  New  York,  and  another 
at  Bethlehem,  Pennsylvania,  where  also  much  of 

[76] 


The  Heart  of  America 

If  it  kin  a  circle  ofl  70  miles  radiut  drawn  ttrvand  Pcckskilt,  N.  Y. ,  e^e  embraced  New  York 
City,  Bottoti,  Philadelphia,  and  many  ttkcr  important  cities;  also  most »/  the  manufactories 
«/  anaamttttt  and  war  materials,  together  with  the  principal  ccal  fields  of  Pcnnsylxiastia 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

our  armor-plate  is  made.  The  big  Cramp  Ship- 
building Works  would  be  found  at  Philadelphia. 
They  would  find  at  Groton,  Connecticut,  the  fac- 
tory where  all  the  interior  parts  of  the  Holland 
submarine  boats  are  made,  and  at  Fore  River, 
Massachusetts,  the  big  shipyard  where  the  Hol- 
land submarine  and  other  war  vessels  are  con- 
structed. 

They  would  find  the  Lake  Submarine  Torpedo 
Boat  Works  at  Bridgeport,  the  United  States 
Naval  Torpedo  Station  at  Newport,  Rhode 
Island,  and  one  of  our  biggest  navy  yards,  to- 
gether with  the  E.  W.  Bliss  Torpedo  Works,  in 
Brooklyn.  The  New  York  Arsenal  they  would 
find  unprotected  on  Governor's  Island.  They 
would  find  the  great  duPont  Smokeless  Powder 
Works  at  Carney's  Point,  Parlin  and  Pompton 
Lakes,  New  Jersey,  and  at  various  points  in  New 
Jersey  the  largest  and  most  important  high-ex- 
plosives works  in  the  world. 

Take  a  map  of  the  United  States,  and  a  pair 
of  compasses,  and  with  one  point  placed  on  the 
Hudson  River,  at  Peekskill,  New  York,  draw 
a  circle  having  a  radius  of  a  hundred-and-sixty 
miles.  There  will  be  included  within  that  circle 
all  of  the  above-mentioned  ammunition  and  arma- 
ment works,  which  constitute  nearly  all  the  smoke- 
less powder  works,  cartridge  works,  torpedo-boat 
works,  small-arms  works,  and  big-gun  and  armor- 
plate  works  in  the  United  States.   Also,  this  circle 

[77] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

will  include  not  only  New  York  and  nearby  cities, 
but  also  Boston,  Albany,  Syracuse,  Philadelphia, 
and  the  most  important  coal  fields  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

The  conquest  of  this  area  would  not  be  a  work 
of  months,  or  of  years,  but  only  of  a  few  days, 
•and  the  thing  would  be  done  before  we  had  time 
to  mobilize  the  available  fighting  forces  we  have, 
much  less  to  enlist  and  train  and  arm  a  citizen 
soldiery. 

This  vital  area  is  the  solar  plexus  of  Uncle  Sam, 
and  an  army  of  a  hundred  thousand  trained  men, 
landed  on  our  Atlantic  seaboard,  would  be  able 
to  capture  this  entire  area  and  subdue  the  popu- 
lace as  easily  as  the  police  force  of  New  York 
can  subdue  a  rioting  mob. 

While  we  were  arming  and  training  our  million 
men  to  make  the  Carnegie  swoop,  the  army  of  in- 
vaders would  be  very  busy. 

They  would  commandeer  all  our  above-men- 
tioned factories,  and  proceed  to  operate  them  with 
skilled  American  labor,  which  they  would  also  com- 
mandeer and  force  to  work,  just  as  the  Germans 
have  forced  the  Belgians  to  work  for  them,  and 
Mr.  Carnegie's  army  of  citizen  soldiers  would' 
find  themselves  without  means  either  of  arming 
themselves  or  of  supplying  themselves  with  am- 
munition or  of  getting  the  skilled  labor  necessary 
to  do  the  work. 

But  this  is  not  all  that  the  invaders  would  be 
[78] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

doing  while  we  were  getting  our  million  men  to- 
gether. They  would  have  means  of  knowing  what 
we  were  doing,  and  they  would  send  out  a  detach- 
ment and  defeat  our  whole  enterprise.  They 
would  probably  levy  on  New  York  City  for  a  bil- 
lion dollars,  and  levy  upon  all  the  cities  in  the 
captured  area  for  every  dollar  that  could  be 
squeezed  from  the  inhabitants  under  threats  of 
destruction. 

Not  only  this,  but  they  might  take  the  notion, 
and  probably  would  take  the  notion,  to  annex  the 
conquered  territory,  just  as  Germany  has  annexed 
Belgium,  and,  as  we  should  then  automatically 
become  citizens  of  the  enemy's  country,  we  should 
be  conscripted  and  forced  to  fight  our  own  people, 
just  as  the  Belgians,  according  to  report,  have 
been  forced  into  the  ranks  of  the  Germans. 

Such  a  military  measure  is  not  new ;  it  is  as  old 
as  war  itself.  Frederick  the  Great  frequently 
forced  his  prisoners  to  fight  in  his  own  ranks,  and 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  sometimes  gave  them  the 
option  of  joining  his  legions  or  of  faring  much 
worse.  Attila  took  with  him  the  entire  male  popu- 
lation of  the  countries  through  which  he  passed  as 
additions  to  his  military  host.  Those  who  re- 
sisted were  immediately  killed,  and  those  he  did 
not  need  were  killed,  whether  they  resisted  or  not. 
As  to  what  may  be  done  in  war,  there  is  no  arbiter 
but  necessity. 

To  receive  an  invading  army  is  not  so  pleasant  a 
[79] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

thing  as  Mr.  Carnegie  assumes.  As  guests  they 
are  just  about  as  lovable  and  make  just  about  as 
good  pets  in  the  family  as  rattlesnakes,  cobras, 
scorpions,  and  tarantulas. 

A  few  Americans  who  were  caught  in  the  war 
zone  when  the  present  war  broke  out  got  some 
useful  knowledge  of  war's  inconveniences  and 
harassments.  What  the  people  for  whom  there 
was  no  escape  suffered  in  Belgium  and  Northern 
France,  is  beyond  our  powers  of  conception.  No 
one  who  has  not  had  personal  experience  can  form 
the  least  idea  of  the  barbarous  atrocities  per- 
petrated by  an  invading  army  on  the  defenseless 
population. 

Invaders  always  live  off  the  invaded  country. 
It  is  considered  more  important  that  they  should 
live  well  than  that  any  one  else  should  live  at  all. 
If,  after  the  invaders '  wants  are  supplied,  there  is 
enough  left  for  the  people  to  live  on,  well  and 
good;  if  not,  then  the  people  must  starve.  The 
invaders  must  have  food  and  clothing  and  the  bare 
necessaries  of  life ;  also,  they  must  have  luxuries. 
They  must  have  cigars  and  cigarettes,  wine, 
women,  and  song.  If  our  country  should  be  in- 
vaded, we  should  not  only  have  to  furnish  food, 
clothing,  cigars,  cigarettes,  and  wine  for  the 
armies  of  the  enemy,  but  also  our  wives  and  our 
daughters  and  our  sweethearts  would  be  com- 
mandeered to  supply  the  women  and  song. 

Occasionally,  an  American  citizen,  with  more 
[80] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

manhood  than  discretion,  would  resent  a  name- 
less indignity,  and  kill  some  military  blackguard, 
who  would  immediately  be  avenged  by  the  burn- 
ing of  the  town  and  the  corralling  and  shooting 
of  the  people  with  machine-guns.  This  is  not  an 
overdrawn  picture — the  thing  has  actually  been 
done  in  the  present  war. 

It  is  very  likely  that  some  of  us  who  look  upon 
this  page  will  be  forced  to  see  wife  or  daughter  or 
sweetheart  namelessly  maltreated  to  gratify  the 
brutal  lust  of  an  invader,  and  lose  our  own  life 
for  a  blow  on  the  scoundrel's  jaw  or  a  stab  in 
his  ribs,  unless — aye,  there  *s  the  rub — ^unless  this 
whole  country  awakens  to  its  danger  and  rises  up 
as  one  man  and  demands  prompt  and  adequate 
defensive  measures  for  national  protection.  As 
this  saving  thing  is  not  likely  to  happen,  the 
entire  country  east  of  the  Alleghanies  will  prob- 
ably be  Belgiumized  with  fire  and  the  sword,  de- 
predated, degraded,  and  desolated  by  an  invading 
army  within  a  very  short  time  after  the  European 
War  is  over. 

This  is  an  age  of  mechanics — an  age  wherein 
man-made  mechanism  more  and  more  replaces 
hand  work.  Everywhere  in  our  industries  of 
peace,  we  have  seen  labor-saving  machinery  re- 
place the  labor  of  human  hands.  Today  all  the 
men  in  the  world  could  not  do  by  hand  all  of  the 
world's  ploughing,  sowing,  reaping,  and  carrying 
of  the  world's  food  to  market;  all  the  women  in 

[81] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

the  world  could  not,  today,  do  the  world's  sewing 
without  the  sewing-machine;  and  all  the  men  in 
the  world  and  all  the  women  in  the  world  com- 
bined could  not,  today,  do  a  tenth  of  the  world's 
writing  without  the  typewriter  and  type-setting 
and  printing  machinery. 

One  of  the  giant  dredges  that  have  been  ladling 
out  of  the  Panama  Canal  the  vast  landslides,  can 
do  the  pick  and  shovel  and  wheelbarrow  work  of 
a  thousand  men.  Everywhere,  in  everything  we 
do,  and  in  everything  done  for  us,  we  find  human 
hands  now  mainly  engaged  in  guiding  the  work  of 
labor-saving  machinery. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  of  America 
have  been  able  to  develop  their  enormous  re- 
sources and  to  keep  abreast  of  the  world's  indus- 
trial progress  mainly  by  the  invention  of  labor- 
saving  machinery  under  the  protection  of  our 
patent  law. 

In  our  competition  with  other  nations  for  the 
markets  of  the  world,  no  one  thinks  of  referring 
to  the  prowess  of  our  unskilled  citizen  soldiers  of 
industry  unsupported  by  machinery,  but  all  reli- 
ance is  placed  upon  our  multiform  labor-saving 
machinery,  and  our  skilled  labor  behind  that 
machinery. 

With  these  pregnant  facts  before  us,  it  is  very 
strange  that  it  should  not  be  perfectly  plain  to 
every  one  that  what  is  true  of  labor-saving  ma- 
chinery in  peace  is  likewise  true  in  war.    It  is 

[82] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

very  strange  indeed  that  there  should  be  intelli- 
gent men  and  women  among  us  unable  to  see  and 
to  understand  that  labor-saving  machinery  and 
labor  skilled  in  its  use  are  as  applicable  and  as 
indispensable  to  successful  warfare  as  to  peaceful 
industry.  Furthermore,  labor-saving  machinery 
in  war  is  life-saving  machinery.  The  quick-firing 
gun  is  the  greatest  life-saving  instrument  ever  in- 
vented. These  persons  do  not  seem  to  appreciate 
that  war  is  an  industry.  As  a  matter  of  stern 
fact,  war  is,  and  has  always  been,  the  biggest  and 
the  most  vital  industry  of  mankind,  and  in  no 
other  industry  is  labor-saving  machinery  so  im- 
portant and  so  vital,  and  in  no  other  industry 
does  so  much  depend  upon  the  skill  of  the  labor 
operating  the  machinery. 

We  are  the  slaves  of  belief,  and  we  love  our 
chains.  Although  our  faith  may  be  false,  we  hate 
the  hand  that  tries  to  free  us.  The  people  of  this 
country  have  a  great  false  faith  in  the  fighting 
qualities  of  their  citizen  soldiery,  improvised  in 
time  of  war.  They  point  proudly  to  the  War  of 
the  Revolution  and  the  War  of  the  Rebellion  t© 
prove  how  our  volunteer  soldiers  can  fight.  They 
overlook  the  fact  that  fighting  was  then  mostly 
done  by  hand ;  that  now  it  is  mostly  done  by  ma- 
chinery, and  that  it  is  just  as  foolish  and  absurd 
to  think  of  taking  untrained  men  off  the  farm 
to  operate  the  guns  and  machinery  of  war  as  it 
would  be  to  try  to  operate  the  factories  with  them 

[83] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

where  the  guns  and  machinery  are  made.  It  takes 
as  long  today  to  convert  a  farmer  into  a  skilled 
soldier  as  it  does  to  convert  him  into  a  skilled 
mechanic. 

Battles  are  no  longer  decided  merely  by  the 
patriotism  and  personal  bravery  of  the  rank  and 
file,  nor  even  by  their  numbers,  but  by  the  effi- 
ciency and  sufficiency  of  machinery  and  materials 
of  destruction  and  the  science  and  scientific  ex- 
perience of  the  commanding  officers.  There  is 
no  time  to  build  steam-fire-engines  or  to  train 
fire  brigades  after  a  conflagration  has  broken 
out. 

A  citizen  soldiery  without  years  of  training  in 
the  discipline  and  weapons  and  mechanism  of 
modern  warfare  is  only  a  mob,  as  easily  scattered 
by  a  few  real  soldiers  as  chaff  by  a  whirlwind. 

George  Washington  held  the  following  opinion 
about  the  value  of  militia  in  warfare: 

** Regular  troops  alone  are  equal  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  modern  war,  as  well  for  defense  as  offense, 
and  when  a  substitute  is  attempted  it  must  prove 
illusory  and  ruinous.  No  militia  will  ever  acquire 
the  habits  necessary  to  resist  a  regular  force  .  .  . 
the  firmness  requisite  for  the  real  business  of 
fighting  is  only  to  be  attained  by  a  constant  course 
of  discipline  and  service.  I  have  never  yet  been 
witness  to  a  single  instance  that  can  justify  a  dif- 
ferent opinion,  and  it  is  most  earnestly  to  be 

[84] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

wished  that  the  liberties  of  America  may  no  longer 
be  trusted,  in  any  material  degree,  to  so  precari- 
ous a  dependence." — Washington. 

If  Washington  held  it  a  mistake  to  rely  on  un- 
trained, undisciplined  men  in  time  of  war,  who 
can  differ  with  him  today,  when  not  only  bravery 
and  discipline  are  required,  but  also  a  knowledge 
of  the  complicated  enginery  of  warfare? 

It  is  obvious  to  any  one  that  ten  men  armed 
with  the  modern  magazine  shoulder-rifle,  with  a 
range  of  more  than  two  nules,  would  easily  be  able 
to  defeat  a  thousand  men — a  hundred  times  their 
number — armed  with  slings  and  bows  and  arrows, 
short-swords  and  spears,  as  was  the  army  of  Han- 
nibal. Hannibal's  famous  Balearic  slingers  were 
able  to  hurl  a  slug  of  lead  through  a  man.  But  ten 
riflemen  would  have  time  to  kill  a  thousand  of  them 
before  they  could  get  within  sling  range.  A  thou- 
sand of  the  famous  English  bowmen  who  fought 
at  Agincourt  could  all  be  destroyed  by  our 
ten  riflemen  before  they  could  get  within  bow- 
shot. 

The  same  thing  holds  equally  true  with  old 
short-range  and  obsolete  firearms,  as  compared 
with  the  longer  range  and  more  accurate  guns  of 
the  latest  pattern.  Ten  good  marksmen,  armed 
with  the  latest  rifles,  could  kill  a  thousand  equally 
skilled  marksmen  armed  with  the  old  muzzle- 
loaders  of  the  Civil  War,  before  they  could  get 

[85] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

-within  range.  These  ten  men  would  each  be  able 
to  fire  with  ease  a  carefully  aimed  shot  every  two 
and  a  half  seconds;  the  ten  m6n  could  fire  250 
aimed  shots  a  minute.  A  thousand  men,  armed 
with  the  old  muzzle-loaders,  would  surely  have  to 
advance  at  least  a  mile  and  a  half  after  coming 
within  range  of  the  modern  rifles  before  they  could 
get  the  ten  riflemen  within  range  of  their  muzzle- 
loaders.  Charging  forward  on  the  run,  it  would 
take  them  at  least  ten  minutes  to  cover  the  mile 
■and  a  half.  In  that  time  the  ten  riflemen  would 
be  able  to  fire  2,500  carefully-aimed  shots.  Such 
is  the  diflFerence  in  the  potentiality  of  troops  de^ 
pendent  upon  suitable  arms. 

With  the  modern  automatic  magazine-rifle  a 
■single  soldier  would  be  able  to  defeat  a  hundred 
men  armed  with  the  old  smooth-bore  single-shot 
^muzzle-loaders  of  the  Civil  War ;  in  fact,  he  would 
be  able  to  kill  or  wound  every  one  of  them  in  an 
open  frontal  attack  over  level  ground  with  his 
long-range  rapid-fire  rifle  before  they  could  get 
near  enough  even  to  reach  him  with  their  short- 
range  muskets.  One  man  operating  an  automatic 
machine-gun  would  be  more  than  a  match  for  a 
thousand  men,  armed  with  the  old  Civil  War  mus- 
ket in  an  open- view  frontal  attack,  over  a  distance 
covered  by  the  range  of  the  machine  gun.  In  fact, 
with  this  weapon,  firing  600  shots  a  minute,  he 
could  play  the  gun  on  their  advancing  line  with  the 
^freedom  of  a  hose  pipe,  and  put  them  hors  de 

IS6] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

combat  in  a  few  minutes — certainly,  before  they 
could  get  near  enough  to  reach  him  with  their 
short-range  guns. 

Half  a  dozen  automatic  machine-guns  sup- 
ported by  a  battery  of  half  a  dozen  modern  rapid' 
fire  field-guns  throwing  shrapnel  shell  at  the  rate 
of  from  thirty  to  forty  a  minute,  planted  on  Ceme- 
tery Hill,  would  have  been  able  to  defeat  Pickett's 
charge  at  Gettysburg  more  quickly  than  did  the 
entire  Army  of  the  Potomac. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  a  nation *s  war  po- 
tentiality depends  very  largely  upon  its  prepared- 
ness to  fight  by  machinery,  and  that  a  mere  citi- 
zen soldiery,  without  the  machinery  of  modern 
warfare,  is  as  impotent  in  the  face  of  modern  war 
engines  as  a  swarm  of  ants  in  the  face  of  an  ant- 
eater.  It  is  obvious  that,  whereas  fighting  ma- 
chinery is  very  expensive,  modern  warfare  is  a 
very  costly  business,  and  a  business  requiring  an 
enormous  investment;  and  also  that,  whereas  a 
thing  is  worth  most  in  war  which  can,  for  the 
least  cost,  produce  the  best  results,  machinery  be- 
comes much  more  valuable  than  life.  A  single 
field-piece  may  be  worth  more  than  a  hundred 
men,  and  at  times  even  more  than  a  thousand 
men. 

In  modern  warfare,  the  cost  in  treasure  and  ma- 
chinery is  of  far  greater  concern  than  the  loss  in 
blood.  Therefore,  the  efiSciency  and  great  cost  of 
all  kinds   of  modern  fighting  equipment   have 

[87] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

served  to  give  the  great  nations  pause,  and  to 
make  them  consider  well  the  awful  risk  before  pre- 
cipitating war.  The  progress  in  fighting  ma- 
chinery of  every  sort  has  been  so  rapid,  and  the 
number  of  wars  so  few,  that  until  now  there  has 
been  no  adequate  opportunity  to  test  fighting 
machinery  in  actual  warfare. 

In  direct  proportion  as  warfare  becomes  more 
scientific,  complicated,  and  expensive  does  it  re- 
quire longer  time  to  prepare  for  war,  both  in  the 
making  of  the  enginery  and  in  the  making  of  the 
soldiers. 

Time  signifies  only  the  measure  of  change. 
Consequently,  time  is  merely  a  relative  term,  in- 
dicative of  the  sequence  in  a  series  of  happenings 
or  eventuations.  If  the  universe  were  annihilated, 
there  would  be  no  such  thing  as  time  because  noth- 
ing would  happen. 

Were  we  to  be  attacked  by  any  foreign  Power, 
we  should  be  able  to  rely,  not  upon  what  we  might 
be  able  to  produce  three  or  four  years  afterward, 
but  upon  what  we  should  be  able  to  put  into  action 
at  once.  Modern  methods  and  machinery  of  war 
cause  events  to  move  many  times  as  fast  as  in 
former  wars.  Three  months  is  a  long  time  after 
war  is  declared.  A  six  months '  war  today  is  rela- 
tively as  long  as  a  six  years  *  war  used  to  be. 

The  following  extract  from  Bernhardi^s  *'How 
Germany  Makes  War"  is  evidence  of  that  expert's 
opinion  of  the  factor  of  time : 

[88] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

"If  Germany  is  involved  in  war,  she  need  not 
recoil  before  the  numerical  superiority  of  her  ene- 
mies. But  so  far  as  human  nature  is  able  to  tell, 
she  can  only  rely  on  being  successful  if  she  is  reso- 
lutely determined  to  break  the  superiority  of  her 
enemies  by  a  victory  over  one  or  the  other  of  them 
before  their  total  strength  can  come  into  action, 
and  if  she  prepares  for  war  to  that  effect,  and  acts 
at  the  decisive  moment  in  that  spirit  which  made 
Frederick  the  Great  seize  the  sword  against  a 
world  in  arms.*' 

Napoleon  once  said,  "The  fate  of  nations  often 
hangs  on  five  minutes,^*  and,  *'God  fights  on  the 
side  of  the  heaviest  artillery."  Also,  he  said,  in 
effect,  that  the  art  of  winning  battles  depends 
upon  the  concentration  on  the  chief  point  of  attack 
of  a  force  superior  to  the  enemy  at  that  point. 

If  we  pass  our  finger  down  the  pages  of  history, 
we  shall  find  the  above  expression  of  Napoleon 
thoroughly  substantiated  and  vindicated.  Most 
great  battles  have  been  won  by  the  concentration 
of  a  superior  force  upon  an  inferior  force  at  some 
vulnerable  point,  and  often  quite  irrespective  of 
the  sizes  of  the  opposing  armies  taken  as  a  whole. 
Everything  depends  upon  the  quickness  in  con- 
centration of  concerted  action.  The  herculean 
physique  of  Goliath  did  not  count  for  much  after 
little  David  hit  him  with  the  pebble.  He  needs  be 
a  big  man  indeed  not  to  be  whipped  when  even  a 

[89] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

small  antagonist  has  succeeded  in  thrusting  a  dag- 
ger close  to  the  heart.  Armies,  like  individuals, 
have  vital  parts,  the  penetration  of  which  means 
defeat. 

Alexander  the  Great  frequently  met  and  anni- 
hilated armies  many  times  larger  than  his  own. 
He  was  often  weaker  than  the  enemy  as  a  whole, 
but  at  the  point  of  attack  he  was  always  vastly  the 
stronger.  This  enabled  him  to  crush  the  enemy  in 
detail.  Hannibal,  Caesar,  Charles  Martel,  Marl- 
borough, Cromwell,  Frederick  the  Great,  Na- 
poleon, Grant,  Lee,  Stonewall  Jackson,  Sheridan 
— all  great  captains — appreciated  and  applied  this 
winning  principle:  Be  able  to  strike  the  enemy 
upon  one  given  point  with  greater  force  than  he 
shall  be  able  to  oppose,  and  strike  first;  then 
follow  up  the  advantage  and  crush  the  enemy  in 
detail  by  concentrated  force  always  superior  at 
the  point  of  attack,  however  inferior  to  the  gen- 
eral force  to  which  it  is  opposed  and  through 
which  it  penetrates. 

Broadly  speaking,  the  machinery  of  modern 
warfare  adds  a  thousand-fold  to  the  potentiality 
of  the  soldier  in  battle  above  his  potentiality  at 
the  time  of  the  Civil  War. 

Ten  thousand  men,  armed  with  modern  guns 
and  all  the  paraphernalia  of  modern  warfare, 
would  on  the  battle-line  be  more  than  a  match  for 
a  million  men  armed  with  the  old  smooth-bore 
guns  of  the  Civil  War.    As  a  matter  of  fact  they 

[90] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

could  kill  all  that  surrounded  them  as  fast  as  they 
approached  from  every  quarter,  and  they  could 
advance  through  the  opposing  lines  with  absolute 
freedom  without  the  loss  of  a  single  man  from  the 
fire  of  the  enemy. 

Let  us  see  for  one  moment  what  ten  thousand 
men  would  be  able  to  do  upon  such  a  host  in  open 
frontal  attack:  Let  us  assume  that  the  ten  thou- 
sand were  armed  with  a  thousand  automatic 
guns,  and,  say,  a  hundred  rapid-fire  field-guns, 
in  addition  to  the  usual  magazine  shoulder-rifle. 
As  soon  as  the  enemy  came  in  sight,  the  ten  thou- 
sand would  open  on  them  with  their  hundred  field- 
guns,  pouring  into  their  ranks  a  perfect  storm  of 
shrapnel.  The  old,  smooth-bore  field-guns  of  the 
enemy  would  be  completely  disabled  before  they 
could  be  brought  within  cannon-shot  of  the  ten 
thousand.  As  soon  as  the  enemy  came  within 
rifle  range,  the  ten  thousand  would  open  on  them 
with  their  thousand  automatic  machine-guns  and 
magazine-rifles.  As  an  automatic  machine-gun 
fires  at  the  rate  of  600  shots  a  minute,  a  thousand 
would  fire  at  the  rate  of  600,000  shots  a  minute. 
The  magazine  shoulder-rifles  would  fire  aimed  shots 
at  the  rate  of  twenty-five  a  minute,  and  the  quick' 
firing  field-guns  would  each  fire  shrapnel  at  the 
rate  of  forty  a  minute.  Making  every  allowance 
for  stoppages  and  for  variables,  dispersion  of  fire 
and  bad  marksmanship,  there  would  be  enough  ef- 
fectual  hits  with  the  shrapnel,  the  automatic  ma^ 

[91] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

chine-gun  fire,  and  the  magazine-rifle  fire,  to  kill 
or  wound  every  man  of  the  enemy  before  that 
enemy  could  get  near  enough  to  reach  the  ten 
thousand  with  their  old  smooth-bore  muskets. 

Every  automatic  gun  and  every  quick-firing 
field-gun  and  every  magazine  shoulder-rifle  puts 
in  the  hands  of  our  soldiers  the  means  of  avoiding 
a  corresponding  sacrifice  of  their  lives.  Not  only 
this,  but  every  automatic  gun  that  we  make  and 
furnish  our  troops  enables  one  man  to  do  the 
work  of  a  hundred  men;  it  enables  a  hundred 
men  to  remain  at  home  engaged  in  peaceful  pur- 
suits while  only  one  man  has  to  go  to  the  battle 
front  and  fight. 

Then  let  us  realize  the  fact  that  every  automatic 
gun  saves  a  hundred  lives  from  jeopardy.  Every 
magazine-rifle  saves  ten  lives,  and  every  quick- 
firing  field-cannon  saves  easily  a  hundred  lives. 

This  should  make  a  strong  appeal  to  the  pro- 
fessional pacifists  who  pretend  that  they  want  to 
save  life.  Surely,  if  war  cannot  be  prevented, 
and  all  history,  and  the  present  moment  as  well, 
prove  that  it  cannot,  then  we  should  make  it  as 
merciful  as  possible,  and  fight  it  in  a  way  that  will 
cause  as  little  sacrifice  of  life  as  possible. 

In  estimating  the  cost  of  war  in  human  lives,  we 
cannot  count  values  that  may  be  placed  upon  them 
by  sentiments  of  humanity,  but  only  such  values 
as,  when  destroyed,  make  the  losing  nation  eco- 
nomically so  much  the  poorer* 

[92] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

According  to  I.  S.  Bloch,  a  new-born  child  of 
the  farming  class  has  a  value  of  twenty-five  dol- 
lars. At  five  years  of  age,  he  has  a  value  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars ;  at  ten  years  of  age,  he 
is  worth  about  five  hundred  dollars ;  at  fifteen,  he 
is  worth  almost  a  thousand  dollars ;  and  at  twenty, 
he  is  worth  a  little  more  than  a  thousand  dollars. 
His  maximum  value  is  at  twenty,  and  he  begins 
to  depreciate  in  value  as  he  grows  older,  because 
of  his  shortened  days  of  service. 

Therefore,  the  average  economic  value  of  sol- 
diers may,  according  to  Mr.  Bloch,  be  put  at  a 
thousand  dollars. 

According  to  David  Starr  Jordan,  it  costs  about 
fifteen  thousand  dollars  for  each  soldier  killed  in 
battle,  so  that,  according  to  these  two  eminent 
peace  advocates  and  peace  propagandists,  when 
the  Germans  slay,  say,  a  thousand  of  the  Allies, 
the  loss  to  the  Allies  is  the  value  of  the  thousand 
men,  namely,  a  million  dollars,  and  as  it  costs  the 
Germans  fifteen  times  as  much  to  kill  them  as  they 
are  worth,  the  loss  to  the  Germans  is  fifteen  mil- 
lion dollars ;  so  that  the  actual  German  loss  is  fif- 
teen times  as  great  as  that  of  the  Allies.  But 
as  the  Allies  are  killing  a  good  many  Germans, 
they  are  generously  sharing  with  the  Germans  a 
fair  proportion  of  the  cost  of  the  war. 

These  figures  are  not  far  out  of  the  way. 
The  fact  is  that,  in  modern  warfare,  the  actual 
loss  of  life  for  the  numbers   engaged  is  cor- 

[93] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

respondingly  less  than  it  used  to  be,  while  the 
cost  is  correspondingly  greater.  In  modern  war- 
fare, the  loss  of  money  is  far  greater  than  the 
loss  of  life.  It  is  more  the  dollar  than  blood,  that 
is  now  shed. 

In  ancient  times,  when  men  fought  hand  to  hand 
in  compact  form,  with  short-sword,  spear,  and 
battle-axe,  they  used  often  to  slay  half  the  num- 
bers engaged — easily  ten  times  as  many  for  the 
numbers  engaged  as  are  now  slain.  There  are 
more  than  ten  million  AUies  now  under  arms 
against  more  than  seven  million  Germans  and 
Austrians.  These  numbers  have  not  as  yet  all 
been  brought  face  to  face  with  one  another  on  the 
line  of  battle,  owing  to  modern  methods  of  war- 
fare; but  under  old-time  methods  with  old-time 
arms,  they  would  have  been  at  once  brought  into 
collision  in  two  enormous  armies.  In  ancient 
times,  less  mobilization  could  be  effected  in  a  year 
than  can  now  be  effected  in  a  month,  but  when  the 
collision  came,  the  issue  of  the  war  was  decided 
on  one  great  field. 

If  these  great  European  armies  were  armed 
with  short-swords,  spears,  and  battle-axes,  as 
armies  used  to  be,  instead  of  with  modern  war 
weapons  and  enginery,  they  would,  during  the 
time  they  have  been  engaged,  very  likely  have 
slain  a  third  of  their  number — certainly  ten  times 
as  many  in  proportion  to  the  numbers  engaged 
as  have  actually  been  killed  in  the  present  war. 

[94] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

Even  a  tenth  of  their  numbers  would  be  a  million 
and  a  half. 

Never  in  all  history  have  such  vast  numbers  of 
men  been  dra\\Ti  up  in  line  of  battle.  Never  have 
they  been  so  scientifically  armed,  and,  conse- 
quently, never  have  they,  for  the  numbers  en- 
gaged, killed  so  few. 

Modern  machine-guns  and  quick-firing  guns, 
with  bullets  and  shrapnel  and  canister,  are  so 
deadly  that  troops  in  mass  form  cannot  live  for  a 
minute  in  front  of  them,  but  as  opposing  armies 
with  modern  war  machinery  line  up  at  the  present 
greater  tactical  distances,  and  throw  out  their 
men  in  long-extended  battle-lines,  and  spread  them 
over  correspondingly  wide  areas,  the  fight  be- 
comes one  largely  of  gun  against  gun,  engine 
against  engine,  with  the  result  that  not  nearly  so 
many  lives  are  lost  as  there  would  be  if  the  fight- 
ing were  done  by  hand,  and  hand  to  hand,  in  close 
order.  The  German  siege  guns  smashed  the  forts 
of  Liege  and  Namur  from  a  distance  of  nine 
miles. 

As  nations  are  bound  to  fight,  it  is  far  more 
merciful  that  they  should  be  armed  to  the  teeth, 
but  it  is  vastly  more  expensive.  Can  we  not  af- 
ford, however,  to  spend  dollars  instead  of  men  to 
kill  our  enemies  ! 

Therefore,  even  according  to  the  facts  and  fig- 
ures of  those  two  eminent  peace-men,  I.  S. 
Bloch  and  Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  the  money  loss 

[95] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

today  is  a  concern  fifteen  times  more  serious  to 
the  economic  welfare  of  a  nation  than  is  the  loss  in 
lives. 

It  is  a  very  strange  paradox  indeed  that  the 
professional  peace-propagandists,  who  claim  to  be 
actuated  mainly  by  considerations  of  humanity, 
should  advocate  disarmament  and  the  inevitable 
reversion  to  the  old  and  more  deadly  arms  and 
methods  of  warfare,  on  account  of  the  greater  ex- 
pensiveness  of  warfare  conducted  with  modern 
scientific  arms  and  methods. 

By  doing  away  with  our  present  highly  scientific 
and  very  expensive  war  enginery  and  fighting 
methods,  the  nations  would  be  able,  in  a  war  like 
the  present,  to  kill  one  another  at  very  much  less 
cost.  They  would  then  be  able  to  kill  ten  times 
as  many  in  a  given  time,  while  the  cost  would  be 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  present  cost. 

It  is  a  matter  of  solemn  certainty  that  the  quick- 
firing  gun  is  the  most  beneficent  implement  of 
mercy  that  has  ever  been  invented,  and  every 
peace  advocate  in  the  world  and  every  lover  of 
his  kind  should  appreciate  this  fact  and  use  his 
influence  in  favor  of  armaments  which  serve  to 
make  war  expensive,  and  tend  both  to  prevent 
war,  and  to  save  life  when  war  comes. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the  great 
European  Powers  had  disarmed  fifteen  years  ago 
when  the  Czar  of  Russia  broached  the  subject  to 
them.    What  would  have  been  the  result?    Thia 

[96] 


*- 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

war  would  have  come  just  the  same,  and  probably 
much  sooner ;  and  it  would  have  been  ten-fold  more 
bloody,  even  had  the  nations  flung  themselves 
upon  one  another  armed  with  scythes,  carving- 
knives,  wood-axes,  and  common  tools  of  trade,  or 
even  had  they  fought,  as  the  simple  cave  men  did, 
with  clubs  and  stones. 

Love  of  home  and  country — patriotism — on  the 
one  hand,  and  race  hatred  on  the  other,  are  far 
more  potent  in  the  human  heart  than  any  lately 
created  sentiments  of  international  brotherhood 
and  humanity.  Before  this  war  came,  it  was  a 
common  preachment  of  the  peace-men  and  a  com- 
mon belief  of  the  multitude,  that  many  socialists, 
members  of  brotherhoods  of  labor  and  other  op- 
ponents of  war,  would  refuse  to  fight,  and  if 
drafted  would  shoot  down  their  officers  from  the 
rear.  But  nothing  of  this  kind  has  happened. 
When  this  war  broke  out,  socialist,  labor  unionist, 
and  preacher  of  international  brotherhood  joined 
with  their  militant  fellow-countrymen  in  singing 
the  ''Marseillaise,"  "Wacht  am  Ehein,"  "Bri- 
tannia Rules  the  Waves,"  and  rushed  to  arms  and 
to  war,  and  are  now  fighting  like  demons,  shoulder 
to  shoulder  with  the  imperialist  and  the  war  lord. 

In  order  that  we  may  be  made  as  right-seeking 
as  possible,  God  has  ordained  the  trials  of  strife 
and  hardship  which  force  us  to  get  busy,  and 
thereby  develop  our  usefulness.  Human  duty  may 
be  expressed  in  the  following  terms:  The  best 

[97] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

preparation  for  the  attainment  of  success  in  life 
is  the  acquisition  of  a  thorough  realization  of  the 
fact  that  no  one  deserves  more  from  the  world 
than  he  earns  out  of  it,  and  that  the  bigness  or 
littleness  of  any  one  is  exactly  proportionate  to 
his  use  to  the  world,  and  that,  consequently,  actual 
self-service  is  impossible  except  indirectly  through 
world-service. 

Whatever  may  be  done  in  the  service  of  an  indi- 
vidual to  help  him  attain  success  and  find  com- 
fort, or  to  lessen  his  discomfort,  may  not  be  best 
for  the  general  good,  because  individual  welfare 
must,  in  the  end  of  things,  be  subservient  to  the 
general  welfare. 

It  sometimes  becomes  perfectly  right  and  proper 
that  individual  life  should  be  sacrificed  for  na- 
tional life,  but  never  national  life  for  individual 
life.  The  nation  has,  however,  its  obligations  to 
the  individual,  and  obligations  as  exacting  as 
those  of  the  individual  to  the  nation.  If  a  nation 
does  not  exercise  due  and  reasonable  diligence 
to  safeguard  its  people  against  war  and  does  not 
provide  itself  with  the  necessary  trained  men  and 
machinery  to  forefend  war,  then  the  obligation 
of  the  individual  to  the  nation  in  the  event  of  war 
is  just  so  much  lessened.  The  leading  of  an  un- 
trained and  ill-armed,  improvised  citizen  soldiery 
against  an  army  of  trained  veterans,  with  aU  of 
the  equipment  of  mocfern  warfare,  results  in  use- 
less, senseless  slaughter. 

[98] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

If  a  nation  does  not  prepare  itself  to  demand 
and  enforce  respectful  treatment  of  its  citizens 
in  foreign  countries,  then  its  citizens  should  have 
no  patriotism,  for  they  are  like  men  and  women 
without  a  country.  But  when  a  nation  is  armed 
with  guns,  and  armed  with  the  purpose  to  defend 
its  citizens,  wherever  they  may  be,  to  the  last 
man  and  last  pinch  of  gunpowder,  and  is  so  ade- 
quately prepared  with  labor-saving,  life-saving 
machinery  that  in  the  event  of  war  the  minimum 
of  human  sacrifice  shall  be  made,  then  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  man  to  place  himself  unreservedly 
at  the  service  of  his  country. 

If  the  people  of  this  country  could  be  roused  to 
a  realization  of  what  invasion  means,  there  would 
be  no  longer  heard  any  senseless  prating  about 
an  unarmed  peace,  but  the  whole  people  would 
rise  in  their  might  and  demand  adequate  arma- 
ments and  an  adequate  army  and  navy,  and  the 
senseless  peace  fanatics  would  be  burned  in  eflSgy. 

We  have  for  half  a  century  listened  with  con- 
fidence to  the  assurance  that  we  are  so  splendidly 
isolated  by  broad  seas  that  we  need  not  fear  in- 
vasion. 

Our  inadequate  Navy  is  today  the  only  bulwark 
against  invasion,  for  modern  means  of  transpor- 
tation over  seas  have  reduced  the  ocean  to  a  ferry. 

Both  England  and  Germany  have  navies  su- 
perior to  our  own,  and  would  be  able  to  destroy 
our  Navy,  and  land  on  our  unfortified  shores  a 

[99] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

hundred  thousand  men  in  less  than  two  weeks — 
half  the  time  that  would  be  required  for  us  to 
mobilize  our  little  Army  of  thirty  thousand  men^ 

Japan  is  not  so  far  away  as  she  used  to  be.  She 
has  been  rapidly  narrowing  the  Pacific,  and  she 
could  land  a  quarter  of  a  million  men  on  the  Pa- 
cific coast  in  less  than  a  month,  much  quicker 
than  we  could  get  our  thirty  thousand  regulars 
there  to  receive  them. 

We  are  no  longer  splendidly  isolated  from  other 
nations.  We  are  isolated  only  from  ourselves, 
and  we  are  truly  splendidly  isolated  in  that  par- 
ticular. 

The  other  nations  are  isolated  only  by  such 
time  and  diflSculty  as  they  would  have  to  encounter 
in  order  to  bring  veteran  troops  to  our  shores, 
with  all  the  necessary  equipment  of  war,  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  this  is  an  isolation  of  less  than  a 
month,  while  we  are  isolated  by  unpreparedness 
by  at  least  fifty  months,  for  it  would  take  more 
than  four  years,  if  we  should  start  now,  to  raise, 
equip,  and  train  an  army  that  would  compare  in 
numbers,  equipment,  and  training  with  the  army 
that  any  one  of  the  Great  Powers  could  place  upon 
our  shores  in  a  month. 

In  a  recent  interview,  Secretary  of  War  Gar- 
rison said: 

''//  tomorrow  any  first-class  military  power 
should  attack  the   United  States  in  force  and 

[100] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY- 

should  succeed  in  getting  her  warships  and  sol- 
dier-laden transports  past  our  fleet,  landed  out  of 
range  of  our  coast  defenses,  once  fairly  ashore  she 
could  pulverize  our  small  regular  army  and  punish 
us  to  a  humiliating  degree,  if  not  actually  make  us 
sue  for  peace,  before  we  could  raise  and  train  a 
volunteer  army  adequate  to  cope  with  the  in- 
vaders. In  other  words,  at  present  our  navy  is 
our  only  considerable  bulwark  against  invasion. 
Even  such  part  of  our  militia  as  we  could  depend 
on  and  the  available  regular  army  would  make  an 
extremely  small  force,  our  army  being  in  size  only 
a  local  police  force,  well  trained  and  highly  effi- 
cient indeed,  but  in  numbers  little  more  than  twice 
the  size  of  the  police  force  of  New  York  City — 
that  is,  not  large  enough  for  our  great  country 
even  as  a  mere  police  force.'* 

Let  us,  for  argument's  sake,  assume  for  a  mo- 
ment that  we  were  to  be  invaded  with  an  army  of 
only  a  hundred  thousand  men,  trained,  equipped, 
and  supplied  with  the  supreme  adequacy  with 
which  the  troops  of  the  other  Great  Powers  are 
trained,  equipped,  and  supplied. 

The  enemy  would  line  up  in  a  battle-front  three 
times  as  long  as  our  little  thirty  thousand  could 
be  stretched  with  equal  powers  of  concentration, 
or  if  our  thirty  thousand  were  to  be  stretched 
out  a  hundred  miles  we  should  be  at  least 
three  times  as  weak  as  the  enemy  at  any  point 

[101] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

of  attack,  even  were  our  thirty  thousand  to  be 
as  well  equipped  and  as  well  supplied  as  the 
troops  of  the  enemy.  But  we  should  be  with- 
out the  requisite  field  artillery,  and  the  artillery 
that  we  should  have  would  be  without  the 
requisite  training.  We  should  be  without  the 
needed  cavalry,  and  our  cavalry  would  be  without 
proper  organization  and  experience.  We  should 
be  without  ammunition  trains,  and  very  short  of 
ammunition.  Our  troops,  hustled  together,  and 
rushed  to  the  front  for  the  first  time  to  face  a 
real  enemy,  would  be  unprepared  to  behave  like 
an  army,  and,  what  is  very  important,  they  would 
have  no  hope  of  success. 

Despair  would  be  in  the  heart  of  every  man. 
Both  officers  and  men  would  know  that  there  were 
no  ready  resources,  no  reserves  and  reserve  sup- 
plies behind  them,  and  no  adequate  arrangements 
for  providing  any.  Every  man  of  the  thirty  thou- 
sand would  know  that  he  was  being  sacrificed  in 
atonement  for  national  blundering,  just  as  at 
Balaklava  the  noble  Six  Hundred  were  by  a  blun- 
der sacrificed  in  the  charge  of  the  Light  Brigade. 

Pkeponderance  of  Gun-Fike 

It  is  strange  how  little  the  law  of  battles  is 
understood  by  most  persons.  Most  persons 
imagine  that  in  a  fight  between  our  Navy  and  an- 
other navy,  gr  between  our  Army  and  the  army  of 

[102] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

an  enemy,  although  the  enemy  might  have  the 
advantage  in  the  number  of  ships  and  in  the  size 
and  range  of  guns,  the  advantage  would  be  im- 
material and  one  which  might  be  balanced  by  the 
superiority  of  our  personnel,  and  that,  although 
we  might  be  somewhat  short  of  the  required  field 
batteries  and  ammunition,  the  superior  fighting 
qualities  of  our  men  would  render  them  more  than 
a  match  for  the  enemy,  even  in  the  face  of  superior 
gun-fire. 

It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  fully  recognized 
even  by  the  advocates  of  better  equipment  for  the 
American  Army,  how  vitally  important  is  length 
of  range  in  field  artillery. 

In  the  Boer  War,  the  British  field  batteries 
found  themselves  at  great  disadvantage  in  face 
of  the  longer  French  guns  of  the  Boer  bat- 
teries. 

In  the  present  European  war,  the  great  long- 
range  German  howitzers,  pummeling  forts  into 
heaps  of  scrap,  and  their  plunging  fire  blowing 
great  craters  along  the  battle-front,  spread  terror 
in  the  ranks  of  the  AUies,  similar  to  the  terror 
that  the  Romans  felt  when  the  fierce  Gothic  giants 
slid  down  the  Alps  into  the  vineyards  of  Italy. 
But  the  long-range  French  field-artillery  soon  re- 
stored confidence,  for  it  was  found  that  the  French 
field  batteries  could  outrange  the  German  bat- 
teries. 

We  need  field-guns  of  longer  range.  We  need 
[103] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

field-guns  that  shall  not  only  equal  in  range  those 
now  in  use  in  Europe,  but  also  we  need  guns  of 
even  longer  range.  We  should  have  field-guns  of 
a  range  sufficient  to  command  sky-line  from  op- 
posing sky-line.  Here  is  an  opportunity  for  the 
vaunted  American  genius  to  assert  itself. 

It  is  necessary  that  the  facts  as  they  actually 
are  should  be  recognized  and  appreciated. 

Victory  in  a  naval  battle  today  depends  abso- 
lutely upon  the  weight  of  the  broadsides  and  the 
speed  of  the  vessels,  which  enables  them  to  ma- 
noeuvre and  choose  positions  of  advantage  with 
respect  to  the  enemy ;  while  victory  or  defeat  in  a 
land  fight  depends  upon  the  weight  of  gun-fire, 
which  can  be  directed  against  the  positions  of  an 
enemy. 

The  actual  number  of  infantry  engaged  is  of 
secondary  importance.  It  is  artillery  that  is  of 
supreme  importance.  Should  we  be  involved,  our 
field  artillery  must  pave  the  way  with  the  dead 
bodies  of  the  enemy  before  our  infantry  can  ad- 
vance. Also,  the  batteries  of  the  enemy  must  be 
silenced  by  our  own  batteries  before  they,  with 
their  gun-fire,  shall  be  able  to  silence  ours. 
Other  things  being  equal,  therefore,  it  is  the  num- 
ber of  field  batteries  that,  more  than  anything  else, 
turns  the  tide  of  battle  for  defeat  or  victory.  If 
the  enemy's  guns  have  a  longer  range  than  ours, 
then  they  will  be  able  to  silence  our  batteries  while 
far  beyond  the  range  of  our  guns.    They  will  be 

[104] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

able  to  destroy  our  artillery,  wMle  we  should  not 
be  able  even  to  injure  theirs. 

Let  us  picture  a  land  fight: 

Our  aerial  scouts  inform  us  that  the  enemy  is 
approaching,  and  that  they  have  already  mounted 
their  long-range  field  artillery  on  a  convenient 
ridge ;  also  that  they  have  placed  their  big  howit- 
zers on  an  adjoining  lowland  under  the  conceal- 
ment of  a  wood,  and  that  this  formation  is  re- 
peated in  similar  units  from  ridge  to  ridge  and 
hill  to  hill  over  a  front  a  hundred  miles  in  length. 

The  enemy  has  also  dug  long  lines  of  trenches 
far  in  advance  of  their  artillery.  The  enemy's 
position  is  well  beyond  the  range  of  our  artillery. 
We  are  unable  to  reach  the  enemy's  position  with 
our  guns,  while  the  enemy,  being  provided  with 
guns  of  much  longer  range,  is  able  to  storm  our 
position  along  our  entire  front,  and  to  throw 
shrapnel  shell  into  the  trenches  filled  with  our 
men,  which  stretch  along  the  lowland  in  front  of 
our  positions.  We  try  to  dig  additional  trenches 
to  advance  our  front,  but  the  men  sent  to  do  the 
work  are  very  quickly  killed  by  the  shrapnel  fire 
of  the  enemy. 

We  see  with  our  field-glasses  that  the  enemy  has 
sent  out  detachments  to  advance  the  line  of  their 
trenches.  We  fire  at  them,  and  find  that  our 
shrapnel  falls  far  short.  The  enemy,  seeing  this, 
advances  and  digs  trenches  close  up  to  the  limit  of 
the  range  of  our  guns. 

[105] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

All  at  once,  the  enemy  opens  j5re  with  shrapnel 
upon  our  entire  line  of  trenches,  and  with  shrap- 
nel and  howitzers  upon  all  our  fortified  positions. 
We  return  the  fire,  but  without  any  effect;  the 
range  of  our  guns  being  too  short  to  reach  the 
enemy.  Many  of  our  guns  are  quickly  silenced. 
The  perfect  hurricane  of  shrapnel  thrown  upon 
our  trenches  has  killed  large  numbers  of  our  men 
and  confounded  the  remainder. 

The  infantry  of  the  enemy  now  advances  pell- 
mell  over  the  intervening  space,  still  under  cover 
of  artillery  fire.  Field  batteries  of  the  enemy 
also  advance  rapidly  and  take  up  new  positions. 

Finding  our  positions  untenable,  our  army  re- 
treats precipitately,  taking  with  it  a  few  remain- 
ing guns,  and  our  men  re-form  their  batteries  on 
commanding  positions  to  cover  our  retreat,  but 
they  are  soon  dislodged  by  the  long-range  guns 
of  the  enemy.  Finally,  our  army  takes  up  its 
stand  far  in  the  rear,  forming  a  new  battle-front, 
which  has  been  previously  fortified. 

The  enemy  advances,  repeats  the  previous  tac- 
tics, forming  a  long  battle-front  on  commanding 
positions  just  beyond  the  range  of  our  guns,  and 
again  proceeds  to  dislodge  us,  and  drive  us  back 
by  their  long-range  gun-fire. 

Our  loss  in  men  and  guns  has  been  enormous. 
The  enemy,  on  the  contrary,  has  lost  no  guns,  and 
but  few  men. 

It  wiU  be  seen  that  the  enemy  can  very  easily 
[106] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

proceed  in  this  manner  into  the  interior,  and  con- 
quer the  whole  country  without  suffering  very 
much  discomfiture,  unless  we  have  guns  of  as  long 
or  longer  range  than  the  enemy  has,  and  as  many 
of  them,  also  as  many  skilled  troops  to  operate 
them. 

Most  persons  imagine  that  infantry,  armed  with 
the  modern  long-range  magazine-rifles,  can  go 
into  battle,  and  shoot  large  numbers  of  an  enemy, 
and  that,  if  the  infantry  is  numerous  and  daring 
enough  and  brave  enough,  they  will  be  able  to  whip 
the  enemy  without  the  support  of  field  artillery. 
This  is  a  grave  error.  An  army  of  a  million  men, 
consisting  entirely  of  infantry,  armed  with  mod- 
ern shoulder-arms,  would  be  completely  over- 
matched and  easily  defeated  by  an  army  of  25,000 
men  amply  equipped  with  modem  field  artillery. 
The  infantry  would  be  wholly  unable  to  get  within 
musket-range,  because  they  would  all  be  destroyed 
by  the  shrapnel  of  the  enemy  before  they  could 
get  near  enough  to  fire  a  single  effective  shot. 

A  hundred  thousand  English,  Germans,  or 
Japanese,  equipped  with  the  longest  and  best 
modern  field  artillery,  with  plenty  of  ammunition 
and  supply  trains,  air-scouts  and  engineer  corps, 
could,  in  our  present  defenseless  condition,  march 
through  this  country  as  Xenophon's  ten  thousand 
marched  through  ancient  Persia.  They  could  cut 
their  way  through  all  opposition  that  we  could 
offer.    "We  have  neither  the  infantry,  nor  the  ar- 

[107] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

tillery,  nor  the  cavalry,  to  oppose  them,  and  the 
artillery  we  have  is  of  so  much  shorter  range  that 
at  no  time  could  we  get  near  enough  to  the  enemy 
to  reach  him  with  our  guns. 

If  war  comes  between  us  and  any  of  the  Great 
Powers,  the  splendid  young  men  of  the  coun- 
try— husbands,  fathers,  sons,  brothers,  lovers — 
will  have  to  go  to  the  front  and  meet  the  invaders. 

If  they  go  forward  equipped  with  the  neces- 
sary arms,  ammunition,  and  enginery  of  war,  and 
are  well  trained  and  well  officered,  then  they  will 
be  able  not  only  to  hold  their  own  against  the  in- 
vaders, with  comparatively  little  loss  of  life,  but 
also  to  repel  and  drive  out  the  enemy  and  save  our 
land  from  spoliation  and  our  homes  from  despoli- 
ation. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  to  be  sent  for- 
ward without  the  necessary  arms,  ammunition, 
and  enginery,  and  without  training,  and  incom- 
petently or  incompletely  officered,  as  the  pacifist 
propagandists  and  other  sentimentalists  are  ad- 
vising and  planning  that  they  be  sent,  then  they 
will  go  just  like  lambs  to  the  slaughter. 

The  zone  of  fire  in  front  of  the  enemy's  trenches 
will  be  heaped  high,  acres  wide  and  miles  long, 
with  their  dead  bodies;  and  writhing,  groaning, 
shrieking,  agonized  forms  of  the  wounded  will 
crawl  over  and  under  the  dead  toward  the  hope 
of  safety  and  mercy. 

Into  such  a  hell  are  the  hyper-sentimental  peace 
J  108] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

sophists  planning  to  send  those  you  most  love, 
those  to  whom  you  most  cling,  and  on  whom  you 
most  depend ;  and  you  are  aiding  and  abetting  the 
crime  if  you  believe  the  words  of  these  false  rea- 
soners. 

Every  word  you  aim  against  necessary  pre- 
paredness for  war  may,  in  the  final  reckoning,  aim 
a  gun  at  the  heart  of  him  whom  you  love  more 
than  all  the  world ;  and  you  might  be  able  to  say , 
a  word  that  would  protect  him  with  a  gun. 

That  human  attribute  which,  more  than  any 
other,  distinguishes  man  from  the  brute,  is  imag- 
ination. Also,  it  is  the  attribute  which,  more  than 
any  other,  differentiates  the  normal  man  from  the 
criminal.  If,  in  imagination,  a  would-be  mur- 
derer could  foresee  the  distorted  face  and  the 
despairing  agony  of  his  dying  victim,  and  could 
foresee  the  tear-streaming  eyes  of  those  mourning 
for  him,  he  would,  unless  brazened  against  every 
feeling  of  pity,  stay  his  hand.  If  those  who, 
through  their  ignorance,  false  belief,  or  hypocrisy 
and  desire  for  publicity,  are  planning  to  sacrifice 
the  unimaginable  thousands  of  our  best  young 
men  in  the  bloody  shambles  of  war,  as  an  offering 
to  false  faith,  vanity,  or  hypocrisy,  could  only 
foresee  in  imagination  the  long  lines  of  manhood 
swept  and  annihilated  by  the  withering  fire  of 
an  enemy,  without  guns  to  return  that  fire,  then 
possibly  they  might  submerge  personal  limelight- 
lust  for  considerations  of  mercy. 

[109] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

If  you  believe  them,  and  speak  as  they  are 
speaking,  and  advise  as  they  are  advising,  against 
adequate  national  defense,  you  should  at  once 
change  your  belief,  and  use  your  voice  and  every 
resource  at  your  conunand  in  future  to  forefend 
this  country  and  avert  the  great  useless  sacrifice. 

Come,  young  lady  reader,  let  us,  in  imagination, 
stand  together  on  the  firing-line :  Those  regiments 
lining  up  are  from  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts.  They  are  forming  for  a 
charge.  It  is  the  only  way.  Those  shells,  bursting 
among  them  with  such  deadly  effect,  are  shrapnel 
from  the  quick-firing  guns  of  the  enemy  placed 
just  over  the  crest  of  yonder  distant  ridge ;  and 
those  huge  plunging  projectiles,  which  throw  up 
great  inverted  cones  of  earth,  with  fragments  of 
men,  are  from  the  enemy's  big  howitzers,  located 
under  cover  of  the  wood  that  fringes  the  horizon. 

If  we  only  had  the  necessary  quick-firing  field- 
guns  and  shrapnel  ammunition,  and  the  necessary 
field  howitzers,  we  might  dislodge  or  silence  those 
deadly  batteries  of  the  enemy.  At  any  rate,  we 
should  be  able  to  engage  them  efficiently  and 
cover  the  charge  of  our  troops.  "We  should  also 
be  able  to  storm  that  line  of  trenches,  to  the 
discomfiture  of  the  enemy  hidden  there  in  vast 
numbers,  and  thus  to  prepare  for  the  onset  of 
our  men.  But  we  have  neither  the  guns  nor  the 
ammunition. 

See — the  order  is  given.  Onward  they  go. 
[110] 


WAR  METHODS  AND  MACHINERY 

Watch  them,  the  brave  fellows!  Why  does  the 
front  line  lie  down  so  suddenly,  with  a  few  left 
standing?  My  friend,  they  are  not  lying  down; 
they  are  dead.  But  they  are  not  all  killed,  a  large 
number  of  them  are  wounded.  They  are  torn  in 
every  inconceivable,  horrible  manner  of  mutila- 
tion. And  look! — the  other  lines  go  down,  too; 
some  lying  still,  others  writhing  on  the  ground. 
One  of  those  poor  devils,  with  hands  clenched  in 
the  grass  and  gnawing  the  earth,  is  your  brother  I 

See — a  huge  howitzer  shell  explodes  right 
among  them.  The  young  man  whom  you  were  to 
marry  on  his  return  from  the  war  was  standing  on 
the  verge  of  the  crater  when  the  explosion  came, 
and  he  is  now  lying  there,  with  both  eyes  blown 
out  by  the  awful  blast  and  hanging  on  his  cheeks. 
There  are  visions  of  you  in  the  blasted  eyes,  and 
there  are  thoughts  of  you  in  the  dazed  brain,  and 
his  dying  breath  is  a  whisper  of  your  name. 

Will  you  continue  to  think  thoughts  and  speak 
words  which  may  drive  him  to  that  awful  death? 

The  picture  is  horrible.  That  of  the  blasted 
eyes  is  revolting.  True,  and  for  this  re.ason  it 
may  not  come  within  the  artistic,  as  outlined 
in  the  philosophy  of  Longinus;  but  it  is  not  my 
purpose  here  to  be  artistic.  My  very  purpose  is 
to  visualize  the  horrible,  because  the  only  way 
for  the  people  of  this  country  to  prevent  this  on- 
coming horror  is  to  make  the  necessary  military 
preparations  for  national  defense. 

[Ill] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

But,  young  lady,  this  is  not  the  end  of  the 
dreadful  picture:  Let  us  look  into  your  home. 
The  awful  news  comes — our  men  are  beaten  with 
enormous  slaughter;  father,  brother,  sweetheart. 
— all  your  home's  defenders — are  dead.  The  in- 
vaders who  have  murdered  them  are  in  the  street 
outside.  There  comes  a  summons  at  the  door.  A 
certain  number  of  the  enemy  have  been  billeted  to 
your  house,  and  you  must  play  the  genial  hostess. 
Though  they  get  drunk,  and  ill-treat  you  beyond 
the  power  of  words  to  tell,  there  remains  no 
remedy.  Your  dear  ones,  who  were  your  natural 
defenders,  have  been  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of 
false  faith  in  defenselessness  as  a  deterrent  of 
war. 


[112] 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

Letter  from  General  Leonard  Wood 

Governor's  Island,  N.  Y., 
February  6th,  1915. 
Dear  Mr.  Maxim: 

I  am  very  glad  indeed  to  learn  of  your  interest 
in  military  preparedness.  The  subject  is  one 
which  is  of  vital  i^nportance  to  the  American  peo- 
ple. We  do  not  want  to  establish  militarism  in 
this  country  in  the  sense  of  creating  a  privileged 
military  class,  dominating  the  civil  element,  re- 
ceiving especial  recognition,  and  exercising  per- 
haps an  undue  influence  upon  the  administration 
of  national  affairs,  but  we  do  ivant  to  build  up  in 
every  boy  a  realization  of  the  fact  that  he  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  nation,  and  that  he  has  a  mili- 
tary as  ivell  as  a  civic  responsibility.  All  this  can 
be  done  without  creating  a  spirit  of  militarism  or 
of  aggressiveness.  Take  Switzerland  as  an  ex- 
ample. Here  we  have  a  country  where  every  boy 
and  young  man  who  is  physically  sound  receives, 
largely  as  a  part  of  his  school  work,  military 
training  to  the  extent  necessary  to  make  him  an 
efficient  soldier.    This  is  a  policy  which  ought  to 

[113] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

he  followed  with  our  youth.  It  is  not  enough  that 
a  man  should  be  willing  to  be  a  soldier.  He  should 
also  be  so  prepared  as  to  be  an  efficient  one.  This 
can  only  be  accomplished  through  training. 
Switzerland  and  Australia  have  shoivn  that  this 
can  be  done  through  the  public-school  system,  and 
with  a  resulting  vast  improvement  in  public 
morals  and  the  quality  of  citizenship.  The  crim- 
inal rate  in  Switzerland  is  only  a  small  fraction, 
of  ours.  Respect  for  the  law  and  constituted  au- 
thorities, the  flag  of  the  country,  and  a  high  sense 
of  patriotism  are  evident  on  all  sides,  and  yet 
there  is  practically  no  standing  army. 

We  have  here  a  patriotic  people,  living  not  with 
arms  in  their  hands,  or  with  a  large  standing 
army,  but  trained,  equipped,  and  ready  to  effi- 
ciently and  promptly  defend  the  rights  of  their 
country.  This  I  believe  is  the  ideal  we  should 
strive  for.  We  need  a  standing  army  big  enough 
for  the  peace  work  of  the  day,  i.e.,  the  garrisoning 
of  our  foreign  possessions,  the  Philippines,  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  Panama,  the  little  garrisons  in 
Porto  Rico  and  Alaska,  and  a  force  in  the  con- 
tinental United  States  adequate  for  the  peace 
needs  of  the  nation. 

We  must  never  again  trust  ourselves  to  the 
emergencies  of  a  great  war  without  proper  prep- 
aration. If  we  do  we  shall  meet  with  an  over- 
whelming disaster.  Preparedness  is  really  an  in- 
surance  for  peace,  and  not  an  influence  for  war, 

[114] 


^/^Wx^'^^T*^ 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

To  send  our  men  untrained  into  war  to  meet 
equally  good  men,  well  trained  and  disciplined, 
was  once  described  by  Light  Horse  Harry  Lee,  of 
Revolutionary  fame,  as  murder.  Perhaps  this  is 
too  strong,  but  it  certainly  is  a  gross  disregard  of 
human  life. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Leonaed  Wood. 
Mr.  Hudson  Maxim, 

698  St.  Mark's  Ave., 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

The  facts  given  in  this  chapter  have  been 
gathered  from  many  authoritative  sources.  It 
would  be  very  comforting  if  these  facts  were 
known  only  to  the  American  people,  but  un- 
fortunately they  are  already  known  to  the  military 
authorities  of  all  the  other  nations.  Other  na- 
tions are  all  very  well  aware  of  our  unprepared- 
ness;  therefore,  I  am  giving  out  no  national  se- 
crets. English,  German,  French,  Russian,  and 
Japanese  navy  and  military  experts  know  exactly 
the  men  and  equipment  we  possess. 

It  is  the  American  people  only  who  are  not 
aware  of  the  truth  about  our  unpreparedness. 
This  ignorance  is  largely  due  to  the  beguilers  who 
have  set  the  face  of  a  great  mass  of  our  people 
against  armaments,  and  have  made  them  turn  deaf 
ears  to  every  voice  that  tries  to  rouse  them  to 
their  danger. 

[115] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

Our  ship  of  state  has  been  drifting  down  stream 
like  a  raft.  The  only  reason  the  raft  has  not  been 
wrecked  lies  in  the  fact  that  we  have  been  fortu- 
nate enough  to  have  a  pretty  clear  stream  to  our- 
selves all  the  while,  with  no  breakers  and  no 
cataracts  in  sight.  But  there  are  breakers  and 
rapids  and  cataracts  down  stream,  and  we  are  at 
last  nearing  them  rapidly. 

Even  as  long  ago  as  1880,  General  Emory  Up- 
ton spoke  thus  prophetically: 

''In  time  of  war  the  civilian  as  much  as  the  sol- 
dier is  responsible  for  defeat  and  disaster.  Bat- 
tles are  not  lost  alone  on  the  field;  they  may  be 
lost  beneath  the  Dome  of  the  Capitol,  they  may  be 
lost  in  the  Cabinet,  or  they  may  be  lost  in  the 
private  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  Wherever 
they  may  be  lost,  it  is  the  people  who  suffer  and 
the  soldiers  who  die,  with  the  knowledge  and  the 
conviction  that  our  military  policy  is  a  crime 
against  life,  a  crime  against  property,  and  a  crime 
against  liberty.  The  author  has  availed  himself 
of  his  privilege  as  a  citizen  to  expose  to  our  people 
a  system  which,  if  not  abandoned,  may  sooner  or 
later  prove  fatal.  The  time  when  some  one  should 
do  this  has  arrived.'* 

In  1912,  Admiral  Kane  said:  **They  told  me  in 
London,  'You  are  living  in  a  fooPs  paradise. 

[116] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMZ 

Some  day  you  will  wake  up  with  a  fight  on  your 
hands,  and  you  won't  be  ready  for  it*  '* 

Not  only  must  the  United  States  solve  the  great 
problem  of  shaping  a  military  policy  that  will 
enable  us  to  establish  an  adequate  force  for  na- 
tional defense  in  time  of  war,  to  build  up  and  man 
our  Navy,  construct  and  man  coast  fortifications, 
and  enlist,  arm,  and  train  an  adequate  army,  but 
also  there  must  be  faced  the  far  more  difficult 
problem  of  enlisting  the  co-operation  of  the  Amer- 
ican people  in  the  enterprise. 

The  fathers  of  our  country,  believing  that  a 
large  standing  Army  would  be  a  menace  to  the  lib- 
erties of  the  people,  ordained  that  our  Army,  in 
time  of  peace,  should  not  exceed  twenty-five  thou- 
sand. Since  then.  Congress  has  several  times 
raised  the  limit  until  we  now  may  have  an  Army, 
in  time  of  peace,  of  not  more  than  a  hundred  thou- 
sand men.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  a  regular 
Army  of  93,016,  both  staff  and  line. 

As  this  Army  has  to  be  spread  out  over  our  en- 
tire continental  and  outlying  possessions,  the  sight 
of  an  American  soldier  of  our  regular  Army  is 
about  as  rare  an  occurrence  as  the  sight  of  a  sea- 
serpent. 

Within  the  actual  limits  of  our  forty-eight 
states  we  have  but  48,428  regular  troops.  Of  these 
17,947  must  be  kept  in  our  coast  fortifications, 
even  as  a  pretense  of  garrisoning  them.  This 
leaves  only  30,481  mobile  troops,  including  en- 

[117] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

gineers,  cavalry,  infantry,  and  field  artillery.  We 
have  a  militia  on  paper  numbering  127,000,  men 
and  officers.  Only  60,000  of  these,  however,  are  in 
readiness  for  service. 

Therefore,  we  have  in  the  United  States  to-day 
a  regular  Army  of  48,000,  and  60,000  militia  ready 
for  duty,  or  108,000  men  and  officers  altogether. 
In  time  of  war  not  a  man  of  our  militia  could  well 
be  spared  for  military  service  to  repel  an  invader, 
for  in  such  troublesome  times  they  would  all  be 
needed  for  police  duty  to  maintain  order  and  obe- 
dience throughout  the  country. 

General  Wood  recently  told  us  that  it  would 
take  d  month  to  mobilize  even  our  little  Army  of 
thirty  thousand  men. 

Out  of  the  127,000  officers  and  men  of  the  militia 
which  we  have  on  paper,  only  60,000  being  avail- 
able, and  only  30,000  of  our  regulars  being  avail- 
able, we  could  place  on  the  firing-line  only  90,000 
men  and  officers,  and  there  would  be  no  re- 
serves. 

When  Napoleon,  the  world's  greatest  military 
captain,  went  into  battle,  he  always  kept  a  large 
and  powerful  force  in  reserve,  to  give  confidence 
to  those  on  the  firing-line,  and  to  save  the  day  in 
case  of  a  reverse,  and  possibly  to  turn  defeat  into 
victory,  and  at  the  worst  to  cover  a  retreat,  and 
save  the  army  from  rout.  This  same  need  exists 
with  us  for  a  large  national  reserve  of  well-armed 
and  well-trained  men,  ready  to  be  called  from 

[118] 


E 

D 

a 

GC 

(0 

<D 

(0 

C 

3 


c 

<D 


T3 

c 

LU 

T3 

C 

CO 
o 


S3 

E 
2 


2f 


I 


I 


4 

:2i 


I 
I 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY. 

civil  life  to  refill  the  depleted  ranks  of  an  army 
at  the  front. 

Our  regular  Army  is,  in  men  and  guns,  but  a 
mere  nucleus  of  what  we  ought  to  have,  and  of 
what  we  must  have  to  save  this  country  from 
defeat  and  abject  humiliation  should  war  come. 

Not  only  this — the  artillery  we  have  is  without 
adequate  field  organization.  It  would  take  at  least 
four  months  to  train  additional  personnel  in  order 
to  get  our  field  artillery  ready  for  duty.  It  would 
take  us  four  times  as  long,  therefore,  to  get  our 
own  artillery  on  the  firing-line,  ready  for  battle, 
on  either  our  eastern  or  western  seaboard,  as  it 
w^ould  for  an  enemy  to  get  its  artillery  there. 

It  is  we  ourselves  who  are  handicapped  by  isola- 
tion, not  the  enemy — isolation  not  of  space,  but  of 
time. 

If  it  be  true  that  God  fights  on  the  side  that  is 
the  best  equipped  with  artillery,  God  could  not  be 
expected  to  fight  on  the  side  of  our  militia. 

Our  militia  at  the  present  time  has  only  sixty- 
five  organized  batteries,  with  four  guns  each.  It 
is  absolutely  imperative  that  we  should  have 
seventy-nine  additional  batteries,  with  six  guns 
each,  even  moderately  to  complete  our  equipment 
in  field  artillery.  Think  of  it!  Our  militia  has 
less  than  half  the  number  of  field  batteries  neces- 
sary for  battle. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  mention  that  these  batteries 
are  without  ammunition  trains,  and  without  of- 

[119] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

ficers  or  men  for  the  new  organization,  and  we 
have  not  the  necessary  horses  to  draw  the  bat- 
teries  we  already  have. 

Our  militia  is  entirely  without  siege  artillery, 
while  neither  our  militia  nor  our  regular  Army  is 
equipped  with  field  mortars  or  howitzers  of  the 
larger  calibers  now  used  abroad,  which  have  been 
so  terribly  effective  in  the  present  war. 

Not  only  are  foreign  nations  far  ahead  of  us  in 
actual  existing  war  strength  in  men  and  guns,  but 
also  they  have  each  an  eflBcient  system  whereby 
their  present  equipment  may  be  rapidly  expanded. 
We  have  no  such  system. 

OuE  Fatal  Isolation 

Never  yet  have  we  perceived  the  important 
truth  that  in  this  age  of  war  machinery,  requiring 
months  and  years  to  create,  isolation  by  time  is 
an  equivalent  to  isolation  by  distance.  Our  own 
isolation  in  the  matter  of  the  time  required  for  us 
to  raise  and  train  armies  and  equip  them  with 
shoulder-rifles,  automatic  guns,  quick-firing  can- 
non, siege  howitzers,  ammunition  supply  trains, 
and  to  build,  man,  and  equip  with  guns,  battle- 
ships, battle-cruisers,  torpedo-boat  destroyers, 
submarines,  and,  no  less  important,  to  equip  flying 
machines  with  trained  aviators,  would  be  a  far 
more  serious  handicap  to  us  than  our  isolation  by 
the  seas  would  be  to  our  enemies. 

[120] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY. 

The  Scientific  American,  February  6,  1915, 
says: 

"TFe  could  not  supply  the  men  for  the  necessary 
field-artillery  organization  for  four  months,  or 
the  ammunition  trains  and  ammunition  for  a  year 
and  a  half,  and  not  a  gun  is  yet  made  or  appro- 
priated for,  for  the  volunteers.  The  militia  is 
short  in  cavalry  and  requires  over  fifty  additional 
troops  of  cavalry  to  provide  the  divisional  cavalry 
alone.  There  is  an  alarming  absence  of  auxiliary 
troops.  Most  of  the  militia  cavalry  is  poorly 
mounted,  much  of  it  practically  without  mounts, 
and,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  special  organiza- 
tions, has  had  little  or  no  field  training.  It  needs 
months  of  hard  work  in  camp.  Engineers,  signal 
and  medical  troops  of  the  militia  are  as  a  rule 
insufficient  in  number,  deficient  in  organization, 
equipment,  and  reserve  supplies,  and  very  many 
of  them  are  far  below  their  prescribed  strength 
and  withoui  available  personnel  to  fill  them  up.'' 

The  following  is  quoted  from  a  statement  made 
before  a  Congressional  committee  in  1912,  by  Gen- 
eral William  Crozier,  Chief  of  Ordnance  of  the 
United  States  Army,  and  one  of  the  ablest  ofiScers 
that  the  Army  has  ever  had : 

**So  far  as  transporting  troops  is  concerned, 
the  sea  as  a  highway  is  not  an  obstacle,  but  a 

[121] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

facility.  It  is  very  much  easier  to  get  any  number 
of  troops  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean  than  it  would 
he  to  get  the  same  number  over  anything  like  the 
^ame  distance  on  land.  Marine  transportation  is 
the  very  best  hind  you  can  have;  the  easiest,  least 
expensive,  and  most  expeditious,  if  you  are  con- 
sidering large  bodies  of  troops  and  large  amounts 
of  material.  The  fuel  charge  for  transportation 
in  good  tramp  steamers  does  not  amount  to  one 
two-hundred-and-fiftieth  part  of  a  cent  per  ton 
per  mile.  The  sea  is  a  splendid  means  of  trans- 
portation. The  distance  is  only  ten  days  for  a 
vessel  of  very  moderate  speed,  and  you  can  carry 
a  thousand  men  on  a  vessel  of  3,000  tons'  capacity 
without  any  trouble  at  all.  There  are  any  number 
of  vessels  to  be  had,  and  there  is  no  resistance 
on  this  side  against  a  well-equipped  force  of  a 
hundred  thousand  men.'* 


Shoetage  op  Officers 

We  have  in  our  regular  Army  to-day  about 
4,572  officers.  The  number  of  English  officers 
killed,  wounded,  and  missing  during  the  first  six 
months  of  the  European  war  was,  in  round  num- 
bers, 5,000,  a  little  more  than  the  total  number  of 
our  officers. 

It  has  been  estimated  by  the  most  able  authori- 
ties, among  them  the  editor  of  the  Scientific  Amer- 
ican, whom  I  quote,  that : ' '  In  case  of  invasion  we 

[122] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

would  need  380,000  stationary  volunteer  coast- 
guard troops  to  guard  the  approaches  to  our  cities 
and  coast-defense  works."  We  should  also  re- 
quire an  additional  500,000  men  at  the  very  least. 
To  be  rational,  we  should  have  a  mobile  army  of 
a  million  men.  In  this  enormous  country  a  stand- 
ing army  of  a  million  men  would,  comparatively 
speaking,  be  small.  It  would  still  be  one-fifth  the 
size  of  the  German  army,  one-tenth  the  size  of  the 
Eussian  army,  and  it  would  be  less  than  the  avail- 
able Japanese  army.  Surely  this  great  Republic 
can  afford  to  maintain  a  standing  army  equal  to 
that  of  Japan ! 

The  number  of  officers  we  have  at  the  present 
time  would,  of  course,  be  practically  lost  in  our 
proposed  mobile  army  of  a  million  men.  Eadical 
and  immediate  measures  should  at  once  be  taken 
to  increase  tenfold  the  officer-making  capacity  of 
West  Point.  Also,  any  private  in  the  ranks 
should,  by  meritorious  conduct  manifesting  mili- 
tary promise,  be  open  to  promotion  to  West  Point, 
to  complete  his  education  there.  This  would  be  a 
tremendous  stimulus  and  encouragement  to  the 
rank  and  file. 

The  burglar  who  has  begun  to  plan  to  rob  a 
house  and  has  commenced  inspection  of  the  lo- 
cality to  keep  tab  on  the  movement  of  the  police 
in  the  vicinity,  has  already  declared  war  on  that 
house.  The  bank-raider  who  has  begun  to  spy  on 
the  cashier  of  a  bank  and  the  nocturnal  habits  of 

[123] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

the  people  of  the  town,  and  has  equipped  himself 
with  the  kit  of  tools  and  the  explosives  to  breach 
the  vault  where  the  cash  lies,  has  already  declared 
war  on  that  bank. 

In  this  same  sense,  and  to  this  same  extent, 
there  is  more  than  one  nation  that  has  already- 
declared  war  on  the  United  States.  Their  spies 
have  been  working  among  us  for  years,  and  they 
have  the  kit  of  tools  and  the  explosives  all  ready 
to  breach  our  Navy  and  our  coast  fortifications. 

Our  lack  of  field-guns  for  our  artillery  and  our 
lack  of  ammunition  are  very  clearly  put  in  the 
Scientific  American  of  February  13, 1915 : 

''TFe  have  in  the  hands  of  troops,  or  stored,  634 
completed  guns.  We  have  under  manufacture  or 
contract,  226.  These  guns  will  probably  not  be 
completed  for  at  least  a  year  and  a  half.  In 
other  words,  the  number  of  completed  guns  is  a 
little  less  than  half  the  total  number  deemed  neces- 
sary for  the  field  force  of  500,000  men,  and  pro- 
vides no  guns  whatever  for  the  coastguard  troops 
or  new  volunteer  organizations  which  will  be  re- 
quired in  addition  to  the  500,000  field  force.  Of 
ammunition,  we  have,  made  and  under  contract, 
approximately  30  per  cent,  for  the  entire  project 
of  guns  (1,292) .  Half  of  this  is  under  manufacture 
or  contract,  so  that  there  is  not  more  than  15  per 
cent,  actually  completed.  For  the  guns  on  hand 
and  under  manufacture  we  have,  of  ammunition 

[124] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY. 

on  hand  and  under  manufacture,  about  41  per 
cent.;  actually  on  hand,  approximately,  20.5  per 
cent.  For  the  guns  actually  made  (634)  we  have 
27  per  cent,  of  the  ammunition  necessary.  For 
the  guns  now  in  the  hands  of  the  regular  army  and 
militia  we  hav,e  about  44  per  cent,  of  the  ammuni- 
tion necessary.  It  should  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  the  guns  in  the  hands  of  the  regular 
army  and  militia  at  the  present  time  are  less  than 
half  the  guns  required  for  these  forces  when  prop- 
erly equipped  with  guns,  even  under  our  scheme 
for  the  assignment  of  guns  and  ammunition,  which 
is  in  both  instances  far  lower  than  in  any  of  the 
great  armies  today,  and  the  present  war  has  indi- 
cated, in  the  case  of  one  great  power  at  least,  that 
the  consumption  of  ammunition  has  exceeded 
twice  their  maximum  estimates,  and  that  the  pro- 
portion of  artillery  will,  in  future,  be  increased. 

''At  the  rate  of  even  last  year's  appropriations, 
which  were  the  largest  made  for  field-artillery 
guns  and  ammunition,  it  will  take  between  eight 
and  nine  years  to  complete  our  present  modest 
estimate  for  guns  and  ammunition,  and  the  neces- 
sary equipment  in  the  way  of  ammunition  trains 
and  other  accessories.'* 

We  are  told  in  the  Eeport  of  the  Chief  of  Ord- 
nance, 1914,  that  no  permanent  ammunition  trains 
have  been  provided. 

The  following  figures  give  the  personnel  of  our 
[125] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

regular  Army,  and  of  our  militia.  They  are  taken 
from  the  Report  of  Major-General  Wotherspoon, 
Chief  of  Staff  of  the  United  States  Army,  for 
the  period  from  April  22,  1914,  to  November  14, 
1914: 

Actual  strength  of  the  United  States  Army,  ex- 
clusive of  Philippine  scouts : 

Officers 4,572 

Men  88,444 

Authorized  strength: 

Officers    4,726 

Men  95,977 

Hence,  shortage : 

Officers 154 

Men 7,533 

Of  total  enlisted  strength,  22.50  per  cent.,  in- 
cluding recruits  and  recruiting  parties,  belong  to 
the  non-combatant  and  non-effective  class,  and  are 
not  with  the  colors;  19.45  per  cent,  are  in  that 
branch  whose  special  function  is  coast-defense. 

Mobile  army  (engineers,  cavalry,  field  artillery, 
and  infantry)  is  58.05  per  cent,  of  actual  strength, 
and  comprises : 

Officers    2,738 

Men  51,344 

[126] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

Omitting  cooks,   musicians,   scouts,   etc.,   mobile 
strength  is : 

Officers   2,738 

Men  45,968 

Mobile  strength  in  continental  United  States : 
Enlisted  men 30,481 

Ammunition: 

We  need 11,790,850  artillery  rounds. 

"We  have  on  hand 
and  being  manu- 
factured           580,000        ''  '' 

We  need  646,000,000  rifle  cartridges. 

We  have  on  hand 
and  being  manu- 
factured    241,000,000    " 

We  need  a  supply  of  9^,  12^,  and  16^  howitzers. 

We  have  only  thirty-two  6-inch  howitzers  and 
smaller  pieces,  none  larger. 

Militia: 

Total  enlisted  men,  119,087,  of  which  only  52.56 
per  cent,  have  had  any  rifle  practice,  and  only 
33.43  per  cent,  have  qualified  as  second-class 
marksmen  or  better. 

[127] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

From  the  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Staff  for  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1914,  we  learn  that  out  of 
our  120,000  mihtiamen,  23,000  failed  to  present 
themselves  for  the  annual  inspection;  31,000  ab- 
sented themselves  from  the  annual  encampment; 
and  44,000  never  appeared  on  the  rifle  range  from 
one  year's  end  to  the  other. 

Congressman  Gardner  tells  us,  further,  that 
60  per  cent,  of  our  militia  were  unable,  in  1913, 
to  qualify  even  as  third-class  marksmen,  and  that 
half  of  that  60  per  cent.  (30  per  cent.)  did  not 
-€ven  try  to  qualify. 

For  years  prior  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  great 
European  conflict,  Lord  Roberts  pleaded  with 
the  English  people,  and  prayed  that  they  might 
hear  his  appeal  to  prepare  for  war  with  Germany. 
Like  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilderness,  he  called  the 
British  nation  to  arms.  His  voice  was  not  heeded, 
and  the  nation  did  not  arm. 

The  voice  of  Lord  Roberts  sounded  harshly  on 
the  ears  of  sensitive  English  officialdom.  Lord 
Haldane,  to  emphasize  his  attitude,  disbanded 
80,000  British  troops  at  the  very  moment  when 
England  should  have  enlisted  and  begun  to  train 
800,000.  Also,  he  threatened  to  abolish  Lord  Rob- 
erts' pension  if  he  did  not  keep  quiet.  The  grand 
old  soldier  was  spared  by  a  kind  Providence  to 
stand  on  the  firing-line  when  the  great  war  came 
which  he  had  foreseen,  and  there  he  saw  thou- 

[128] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY. 

sands  of  his  country's  dead  who  had  fallen  from 
failure  to  regard  his  timely  warning. 

We  have  a  Lord  Roberts,  too.  There  is  a  grand 
old  American  soldier  who  for  years  has  appealed 
to  us  to  fly  to  arms  with  all  speed  in  preparation 
against  war.  He  has  even  greater  reason  than 
Lord  Roberts  had,  because  our  danger  is  many 
times  greater  than  was  England's  danger.  We 
are  practically  defenseless,  while  England  was 
not. 

I  quote  the  following  from  the  American  Lord 
Roberts,  General  Leonard  Wood : 

"...  We  have  neither  guns  nor  ammunition 
suificient  to  give  any  general  commanding  an 
army  in  the  field  any  assurance  of  success  if  at- 
tacked by  an  army  of  equal  size  which  is  supplied 
with  its  proper  quota  of  field-artillery. 

"The  fire  of  modern  field-artillery  is  so  deadly 
that  troops  cannot  advance  over  terrain  swept  by 
these  guns  without  prohibitive  losses.  It  is  there- 
fore necessary  to  neutralize  the  fire  of  hostile  guns 
before  our  troops  can  advance,  and  the  only  way 
to  neutralize  the  fire  of  this  hostile  field-artillery 
is  by  field-artillery  guns,  for  troops  armed  with 
the  small  arms  are  as  effectual  against  this  fire 
until  they  arrive  at  about  2,000  yards  from  it  as 
though  they  were  armed  with  knives.  This  field- 
artillery  material  and  ammunition  cannot  be 
quickly  obtained.    In  fact,  the  Chief  of  Ordnance 

[129] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

estimates  that  almost  one  year  would  be  required 
to  supply  the  field-artillery  guns  needed  with  one 
field  army  of  a  little  less  than  70,000  men.  No  war 
within  the  past  45  years  has  lasted  for  one  year, 
so  that  after  war  is  declared  it  would  probably  be 
over  before  we  could  numufacture  an  appreciable 
number  of  guns;  and  the  same  applies  to  ammuni- 
tion. 

''The  Ordnance  Department  states  that  by  run- 
ning night  and  day  with  three  shifts  Frankford 
Arsenal  could  turn  out  about  1,600  rounds  of  am- 
munition per  day,  and  that  if  private  manufac- 
turers were  given  orders  to  run  under  war  condi- 
tions they  could  begin  deliveries  of  ammunition  in 
from  three  to  four  months,  and  after  getting 
under  way  could  turn  out  about  100,000  or 
200,000  rounds  per  month  for  two  or  three  months, 
and  after  a  total  time  of  six  months  the  produc- 
tion would  perhaps  equal  250,000  rounds  per 
month.  The  best  estimates  indicate  that  at  the 
end  of  the  first  six  months  not  to  exceed  350,000 
rounds  could  be  procured  from  all  sources,  includ- 
ing the  Government  plant.  After  this  six  months 
there  would  be  no  particular  difficulty  in  securing 
ammunition  as  rapidly  as  might  be  needed. 

" .  .  .  It  is  my  belief  that  .  .  .  unless  private 
manufacturers  are  now  encouraged  to  manufac- 
ture ammunition  for  our  guns  after  war  is  de- 
clared, they  will  not  be  in  any  condition  to  do  so 

[130] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

until  after  the  war  is  finished,  and  the  supply  of 
ammunition  during  the  war  will  he  limited  to  what 
the  arsenals  can  turn  out.  At  present  this  is 
about  1,600  rounds  per  day,  running  three  shifts, 
and  this  ammunition,  under  ordinary  battle  condi- 
tions, could  be  fired  by  eight  guns  in  one  day  of 
battle.  If  guns  are  not  supplied  on  the  battlefield 
with  the  ammunition  which  they  can  be  reasonably 
expected  to  use,  they  are  not  efficient,  and  when 
a  gun  has  exhausted  the  ammunition  supplied  it 
becomes  as  perfectly  useless  as  junk;  in  fact,  it  is 
worse  than  junk,  for  it  must  be  protected  by  other 
troops. 

*'In  the  Russo-Japanese  War  the  Russians  ex- 
pended during  the  war,  exclusive  of  the  action 
around  Port  Arthur,  954,000  rounds. 

"At  Mukden  in  nine  days  they  expended  250,000 
rounds. 

"One  battery  of  eight  guns  at  Mukden  fired 
11,159  rounds,  or  1,395  rounds  per  gun. 

"At  Liaoyang  eight  Russian  guns  fired  in  three 
hours  2,500  rounds,  or  312  per  gun. 

"During  August  30  and  31  the  First  and  Third 
Siberians,  with  16  batteries  of  8  guns  each,  fired 
108,000  rounds,  or  844  rounds  per  gun. 

"At  Schaho,  in  a  four-days'  fight,  the  artillery 
of  the  First  Infantry  Division — 48  guns — fired  602 
rounds  per  gun. 

"At  this  same  battle  in  45  minutes,  20  minutes 
of  which  were  not  occupied  by  firing,  42  guns  fired 

[131] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

8,000  rounds,  or  190  rounds  per  gun  in  25  minutes 
of  actual  firing. 

"The  War  Department  believes,  after  extended 
study,  that  in  case  of  war  with  a  first-class  power 
an  army  of  500,000  men  will  he  needed  to  give  this 
country  any  chance  of  success  against  invasion, 
and  that  this  force  will  he  needed  at  once.  To 
make  it  efficient  it  must  he  given  its  proper  quota 
of  field-artillery.  To  do  this  this  artillery  must 
he  on  hand,  for  it  cannot  he  supplied  after  war  is 
started.  A  municipality  might  as  well  talk  ahout 
buying  its  fire-hose  after  the  conflagration  has 
started.  A  fire  department  without  its  propei 
equipment  is  worthless,  irrespective  of  the  num- 
ber of  men  it  has;  and  so  would  he  your  armies, 
unless  you  provide  in  peace  the  material  which  will 
make  them  effective  in  war." — Statement  of  facts 
by  Major-General  Leonard  Wood,  Hearings  on 
Fortifications  Bill,  Dec.  9, 1913. 

Is  Congress  to  Blame? 

The  blame  for  our  undefended  condition  is  gen- 
erally attributed  to  Congress.  It  is  true  enough 
that  the  main  blame  rests  with  Congress,  but  it 
must  be  remembered  also  that  Congress  represents 
the  will  of  the  people. 

Every  Congressman  goes  to  Washington  in  the 
interest  of  his  constituents.  He  goes  there  to 
dicker  for  them  and  to  swap  votes  with  other  Con- 

[132] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

gressmen  in  exchanging  Congressional  concession 
for  Congressional  concession.  His  constituents 
want  a  post-office  in  their  district,  or  a  river  deep- 
ened, or  widened,  or  want  a  navy  yard  in  their 
state,  and  he  is  ready  to  vote  for  similar  conces- 
sions to  all  other  Congressmen  who  will  vote  for 
the  concessions  his  constituents  require.  Every 
Congressman  is  mindful  of  the  fact,  and  every 
time  he  returns  home  he  is  reminded  of  the  fact 
that  he  has  not  been  sent  to  Congress  for  his 
health,  but  for  the  health  of  his  constituents,  and 
if  he  hopes  to  be  returned,  he  must  see  to  it  that 
he  gets  what  they  have  sent  him  after. 

They  have  not  sent  him  there  to  support  an  ap- 
propriation bill  for  a  larger  army  or  a  larger 
navy.  The  people  are  imbued  with  the  belief  that 
the  country  as  a  whole  is  big  enough  and  pros- 
perous enough  to  be  safe.  They  know  little  or 
nothing,  and  care  less,  about  national  defenses. 
No  calamity  has  ever  come  upon  us  for  lack  of 
defenses.  Why  should  they  worry?  Also,  they 
have  been  assured  from  the  pulpit  and  the  Chau- 
tauqua and  by  circulars  sent  out  by  the  peace  so- 
cieties that  we  not  only  do  not  need  more  defenses, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  we  do  not  need  those  we 
have ;  and  they  are  asked  to  write  personal  letters 
to  their  Congressmen  urging  them  to  vote  against 
any  appropriations  to  increase  our  national  de- 
fenses. 

I  am  not  arguing  for  a  large  standing  army, 
[133] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

but  merely  for  an  adequate  army — an  army  big 
enough  to  intercept  an  invading  army  that  might 
be  landed  on  our  shores  in  the  event  of  our  Navy 
being  destroyed  or  evaded. 

The  American  people  are  imbued  with  the  idea 
that  a  large  standing  army  is  a  menace  to  liberty. 
Whatever  justification  there  may  be  for  this  atti- 
tude, it  is  certain  that,  if  we  are  to  yield  to  this 
point  of  view,  and  get  along  with  a  comparatively 
small  effective  army,  it  is  absolutely  indispensable 
that  we  should  have  a  navy  certainly  as  powerful 
as  any  in  the  world,  with  the  single  possible  ex- 
ception of  that  of  England.  All  arguments  that 
may  be  made  against  a  large  standing  army  be- 
come arguments  in  favor  of  a  very  large  navy. 

In  view  of  the  comparative  weakness  of  our 
present  Navy,  we  need  an  effective  army  of  at 
least  a  million  men.  If,  however,  our  Navy  were 
to  be  brought  to  first  rank  and  the  Swiss  system 
of  military  training  in  public  schools  were  to  be 
adopted,  we  could  get  along  with  a  much  smaller 
army.  By  the  adoption  of  such  a  system,  we 
should  soon  have  a  very  large  trained  reserve 
force  in  civil  life,  which  could  be  drawn  upon  in 
case  of  need.  Assuming  the  adequacy  of  our  Navy 
and  coast  fortifications.  General  Wood  believes 
that,  if  the  Swiss  system  of  military  training  in 
public  schools  were  to  be  adopted,  we  could  get 
along  very  well  with  a  standing  army  of  from 
200,000  to  225,000  men. 

[134] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

A  navy,  however  large,  could  not,  by  any  possi- 
ble stretch  of  the  imagination,  be  termed  a  menace 
to  onr  liberties,  and,  as  ex-Secretary  Meyer  has 
said,  we  are  rich  enough  to  match  dollars  for  na- 
tional defense  with  any  other  nation  in  the  world. 

It  is  common  belief  that  military  training  and 
service  in  preparation  for  national  defense  menace 
democratic  institutions. 

In  the  days  of  her  greatest  virility  and  military 
prowess,  Eome  was  a  republic.  But  we  must  not 
conclude,  because  a  country  is  governed  by  a  con- 
gress and  a  president  elected  by  the  people,  that 
all  its  institutions  are  more  free  or  less  autocratic 
than  the  institutions  of  a  limited  monarchy,  or 
even  an  absolute  monarchy. 

We,  in  the  United  States,  often  pass  laws  that 
are  so  arbitrary,  unprecedented,  unwarranted,  and 
confiscatory,  as  to  make  absolutism  wince.  The 
cities  of  Germany  are  governed  so  wisely  and  so 
well  that  could  we  have  that  system  transplanted 
here,  it  would  be  almost  worth  our  while  to  invite 
German  conquest  of  the  country. 

No  man's  patriotism  rises  higher  than  his  real- 
ization of  the  need  that  his  country  has  for  him. 
None  of  us  likes  our  taxes  any  too  well.  Never- 
theless, they  bring  home  to  us  a  better  realization 
of  the  interdependence  of  the  government  and  the 
individual. 

We  love  those  for  whom  we  make  sacrifices,  and 
those  to  whom  we  give  favors.    Benjamin  Frank- 

[135] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

lin,  desiring  the  favorable  regard  of  a  prominent 
person,  made  it  opportune  for  that  eminent  per- 
son to  do  Franklin  a  favor. 

Conscription,  like  that  enforced  in  Germany, 
makes  good  citizens.  It  implants  in  them  a  sense 
of  duty  and  obligation  to  the  government,  and 
creates  a  greater  respect  for  ruling  power  and  for 
law  and  order. 

In  this  country,  the  ideas  of  the  average  individ- 
ual concerning  his  obligations  to  the  government 
and  the  government's  obligations  to  him  are  vague 
and  crude  to  the  last  degree.  Conscription  would 
largely  remedy  this  by  teaching  duty  to  the  gov- 
ernment. 

(The  government  has  exactly  the  same  right  to 
levy  on  the  individual  for  military  service  as  it 
has  to  tax  him  for  anything  else.  Just  as  the  gov- 
ernment has  the  right  to  tax  the  individual  for 
financial  support  of  the  government,  so  it  has  the 
right  to  tax  the  individual  for  military  support  of 
the  government.  Conscription  makes  the  govern^ 
ment  and  the  individual  partners  for  the  common 
welfare.  Few  persons  in  this  country  consider 
themselves  partners  of  the  government. 

In  ancient  Sparta,  all  individuals  were  the  prop- 
erty of  the  government;  all  children  were  owned 
by  the  state.  Consequently,  the  people  owned  the 
state,  and  the  state  owned  the  people.  It  is  proper 
that  the  state  and  the  individual  should  own  each 
other,  insomuch  as  their  interests  are  mutual, 

[136] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY. 

just  the  same  as  husband  and  wife  own  each 
other. 

/  Perhaps  the  best  system  of  preparing  the  youth 
and  young  men  of  a  country  for  military  service 
is  that  practised  in  Switzerland.  Smtzerland  is 
a  typical  democracy,  and  yet  no  country  in  the 
world  has  a  more  universal  and  efficient  system 
of  military  training  for  its  youth  and  young  men. 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  war  of  1870,  Ger- 
many, guided  by  the  iron  will  of  Bismarck,  di- 
vulged to  Switzerland  that  the  mailed  fist  had  an 
itching  palm  for  Swiss  territory.  Immediately  an 
army  of  a  hundred  thousand  Swiss  mobilized  on 
the  frontier.  They  were  the  best-armed,  the  best- 
trained,  and  altogether  the  most  efficient  soldiers 
in  Europe.  Every  man  of  them  could  shoot  to 
kill.  They  were  the  flower  of  the  mountains.  Bis- 
marck concluded  that  the  game  was  not  worth  the 
candle.  If  Switzerland  had  not  been  armed  to  the 
teeth  and  ready,  that  country  to-day  would  be  a 
part  of  Germany. 

The  Swiss  have  not  the  remotest  idea  of  making 
an  aggressive  move  on  any  neighboring  country, 
but  they  hold  themselves  in  perfect  readiness  to 
see  to  it  that  no  other  nation  can  find  it  profitable 
to  make  an  aggressive  move  on  Switzerland. 

Switzerland  makes  her  military  training  a  part 
of  her  school  system.  The  chubby,  rosy-cheeked 
little  Swiss  boys  are  taught  to  play  soldier  with 
wooden  imitation  guns,  and  as  they  grow,  the 

[137] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

training  later  becomes  more  comprehensive,  more 
exacting,  more  scientific,  until,  finally,  the  young 
men  find  real  guns  in  their  hands,  find  themselves 
commanded  by,  and  receiving  instructions  from, 
real  officers,  and  they  are  taught  to  shoot.  When 
their  school  training  is  over,  their  military  train- 
ing and  term  of  mihtary  service  also  are  over. 
They  are  ready  for  civil  life,  but,  too,  they  are 
ready  at  any  moment  for  the  call  of  their  country 
from  civil  life  to  shoulder  rifle  and  knapsack  and 
go  to  the  front. 

This  is  the  system  that  we  should  adopt  in  our 
country.  It  places  no  burden  upon  the  schoolboy 
or  the  young  man ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  source 
of  keen  enjoyment,  like  any  other  manly  game. 
The  beneficial  psychological  effect  is  simple :  The 
youth  is  taught  obedience,  his  powers  of  percep- 
tion are  quickened,  his  alertness  increased,  his 
physique  greatly  strengthened,  his  health  bene- 
fited, and  his  personal  habits  governed  by  laws  of 
temperance  and  hygiene,  with  the  result  that  his 
efficiency  for  usefulness  in  all  the  business  and 
affairs  of  civil  life  afterward  is  greatly  enhanced. 
Thus,  in  Switzerland,  the  earning  power  of  the 
population  is  increased  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
cost  for  the  training  and  maintenance  of  the  entire 
army. 

Mr.  Richard  Stockton,  Jr.,  in  his  book,  *' Peace 
Insurance,"  ably  expresses  the  value  of  military 
training,  as  follows : 

[138] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  ARMY 

*' Military  training  has  an  important  value  en- 
tirely apart  from  its  actual  military  value.  This 
is  conclusively  proven  in  the  numerous  military 
schools  of  the  United  States.  The  majority  of 
these  schools  disclaim  any  attempt  to  train  sol- 
diers, but  include  military  training  merely  to 
mahe  better  citizens.  They  find  that  the  man 
trained  militarily  learns  obedience,  promptness, 
cleanliness,  orderliness,  coolness,  and  secures  that 
priceless  asset  known  as  executive  ability — the 
ability  to  make  others  obey.  Such  schools  form  a 
stronger  character  and  make  better  men. 

''If  this  is  true  in  a  military  school,  it  must  be 
equally  so  with  similar  training  received  else- 
where. If  thousands  of  parents  pay  from  $500  to 
$1,500  per  year  to  secure  this  training  for  their 
boys,  surely  there  is  some  gain  to  the  nation  in 
the  men  ivho  receive  this  training  in  the  army. 
The  fact  is  too  well  attested  by  educators  through- 
out the  world  to  admit  of  serious  questioning." 

It  is  possible  that  German  militarism,  by  becom- 
ing absolutism,  has  grown  from  servant  to  master 
in  Germany.  However  this  may  be,  one  thing  is 
certain,  that  German  progress  in  the  industrial 
arts  and  sciences,  in  municipal  and  general  gov- 
ernment economics,  has  made  the  German  people 
more  efficient  and  potential  per  capita  than  the 
people  of  any  other  country  on  earth.  Conse- 
quently, we  must  admit  either  that  the  Germans 

[139] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

are  inherently  superior  intellectually  to  the  people 
of  other  nations,  or  that  they  have  acquired  their 
present  economic  superiority  by  reason  of  some 
procedure  which  they  have  followed,  and  with 
which  other  nations  have  not  kept  pace. 

The  natural  assumption  is  that  militarism  is 
responsible  for  the  German  culture  of  efficiency. 
It  is  not  an  unreasonable  conclusion,  in  view  of  the 
evidence,  that  German  militarism  is  the  greatest 
school  of  economics  that  the  world  has  ever  seen. 


[140] 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

"  Look  at  the  accomplished  rise  of  Japan ;  think  of  the  possible 
national  awakening  of  China;  and  then  judge  of  the  vast  prob- 
lems of  the  Pacific.  Only  those  Powers  who  have  great  navies 
will  be  listened  to  with  respect  when  the  future  of  the  Pacific 
comes  to  be  solved." 

Kaiser  Wilhelm  II. 

A  FAMOUS   English   philosopher   once  took 
his  son  to  the  House  of  Parliament,  and 
said  to  him,  ''Now,  my  boy,  I  want  you  to 
witness  with  what  ignorance  and  irrationality  we 
are  governed.'* 

Were  that  same  philosopher  and  his  son  to  wit- 
ness some  of  our  American  legislative  proceed- 
ings, he  would  find  still  greater  ignorance  and 
inconsistency  for  the  edification  of  his  son. 

The  fathers  of  our  country  thought  it  necessary 
to  the  security  of  our  government  that  all  naval 
and  military  authority  should  be  subordinate  to 
the  civil  authority.  Congress  is  able  absolutely 
to  dominate  the  Army  and  Navy.  The  Secretary 
of  War  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  are  gen- 
erally civilian  politicians.  It  certainly  does  seem 
inconsistent  to  take  a  man  out  of  civil  life,  who, 
very  likely,  may  be  wholly  ignorant  of  naval  and 

[141] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

military  matters,  and,  through  preconceived  preju- 
dice, unalterably  opposed  to  actual  naval  and 
military  needs,  and  place  him  in  a  position  seri- 
ously to  interfere  with  the  work  of  the  officers 
who  have  been  educated  at  government  expense 
at  West  Point  and  Annapolis. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Army  and  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  ought  not  to  be  changed,  regardless 
of  merit,  or  the  lack  of  it,  every  time  we  change 
a  President.  Those  important  offices  should  be 
lifted  out  of  politics.  A  man's  political  qualifica- 
tions for  an  office  usually  depend  not  a  whit  upon 
his  being  suited  to  the  office  by  his  ability  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  the  office,  but  simply  upon  what 
he  has  done  for  the  party  to  earn  the  appoint- 
ment. 

There  is  a  huge  difference  between  political 
merit  and  official  merit.  Political  merit  relates 
entirely  to  party  service,  and  may  constitute  de- 
merit when  squared  with  the  generally  accepted 
moral  code  and  standard  of  human  behavior.  A 
Secretary  of  the  Army  or  a  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
may,  by  previous  training,  ignorance,  effeminacy, 
or,  even  worse,  by  pacific  bias,  be  entirely  un- 
suited  to  such  a  position  and  entirely  incapable  of 
broadly  perceiving  militant  duty. 

Such  changing  of  our  war  and  naval  secretaries 
is  as  harmful  as  it  would  be  to  change  the  head 
of  a  hospital  every  month,  with  the  same  disre- 
gard of  qualifications  derived  from  previous  edu- 

[142] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY, 

cation,  training,  and  experience.  Evidently,  it 
would  be  disastrous  to  place  in  supreme  command 
of  a  hospital  first  an  allopath,  then  change  him 
a  month  later  for  a  homeopath,  replace  the  homeo- 
path with  an  osteopath,  followed  by  a  Christian 
Science  healer,  then  a  spiritualistic  clairvoyant, 
finally  a  Hindoo  swami.  Such  a  rotation  of  hos- 
pital heads  would  hit  the  patients  pretty  hard. 

When,  however,  we  get  a  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
of  the  caliber  of  Theodore  Roosevelt,  or  of  ex- 
Secretary  Meyer,  then  the  Navy  profits  by  having 
a  civilian  for  its  head,  because  such  men  as  these, 
who  are  natural  judges  and  masters  of  men,  are 
able  to  make  use  of  the  greater  knowledge  and 
experience  of  those  under  them,  and  they  have  the 
additional  advantage  of  being  en  rapport  with 
the  civilian's  point  of  view,  while  from  the  fact 
that  they  are  civilians,  they  escape  the  unreason- 
ing prejudice  of  the  anti-militarists,  who  believe 
that  all  naval  and  military  men  are  actuated  by 
ulterior  motives  and  self-interest  when  trying 
to  get  Congressional  support  for  the  Army  and 
Navy. 

A  man  who,  through  study  and  experience,  has 
become  a  specialist  in  a  certain  line  of  work,  is 
better  qualified  to  do  work  in  that  line  and  to 
know  its  needs  than  is  a  person  who  has  had  no 
such  knowledge  and  no  such  experience.  In  legal 
matters,  we  go  to  a  lawyer  to  get  advice,  and  we 
generally  take  it,  and  pay  for  it.     There  is  an 

[143] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

old  saw  that  lie  who  acts  as  his  own  lawyer  has 
a  fool  for  a  client. 

i^he  American  Congress  is  composed  almost  en- 
tirely of  civilians,  who  are  qualified  neither  by 
study  nor  experience  to  pass  judgment  on  the 
needs  of  our  Army  and  Navy.  They  are  as  un- 
able correctly  to  diagnose  the  condition  of  our 
Navy  and  to  prescribe  rational  remedies  as  a 
pastry  cook  would  be  to  diagnose  and  operate  for 
appendicitis,  or  to  prescribe  for  the  treatment  of 
pneumonia. 

It  is  hard  to  understand  how  there  could  be 
any  one  in  the  country  unable  to  perceive  this 
patent  truth — that  a  person  educated  and  trained 
to  a  thing  all  his  life  ought  to  know  more  about 
that  thing  than  a  person  who  has  had  no  such 
training  and  no  such  experience. 

Yet  the  officers  of  the  Army  and  Navy  are  not 
permitted  to  give  public  expression  to  their  views 
on  naval  and  military  needs. 

I  quote  from  the  New  York  Times  the  following 
remarks  on  a  significant  incident : 

'^Washington,  Feb.  17,  1915. — Secretary  Gar- 
rison to-day  instructed  Brigadier-General  Scott, 
chief  of  staff  of  the  army,  to  call  upon  Captain 
William  Mitchell,  of  the  general  staff,  to  explain 
published  remarks  attributed  to  him  on  the  un- 
preparedness  of  the  United  States  for  ivar. 

'' Captain  Mitchell  was  quoted  as  having  said 
[IM] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVZ 

that  'it  would  take  the  United  States  about  thre6 
years  to  put  an  army  of  one  million  trained  men 
in  the  field,  and  in  that  time  an  enemy  could  take 
and  hold  our  American  seaboards.' 

*' Secretary  Garrison  said  he  considered  such 
utterances,  if  made  in  public  at  present,  inju- 
dicious and  improper,'* 

When  a  hunter  goes  out  with  a  gun  after  game, 
he  does  not  consider  it  good  sport  to  shoot  a  four- 
footed  beast  or  flying  fowl  without  first  giving  the 
victim  a  chance  for  its  life,  and  an  opportunity 
to  give  the  alarm  to  its  fellows ;  yet  our  army  and 
navy  men,  under  the  present  gag  rule,  are  not 
given  a  sportsman's  chance  to  escape  being  shot, 
through  our  national  unpreparedness,  or  even  to 
give  a  cry  of  warning  to  their  fellows.  Even  the 
murderer  is  given  a  chance  to  present  his  case 
before  being  executed,  but  the  American  soldier 
is  not  afforded  any  such  opportunity. 

Our  Congress  allows  itself  to  be  dominated  by 
impossible  pacific  ideas,  and  consequently  neglects 
to  take  the  necessary  sane  precautions  to  safe- 
guard the  country  against  war,  or  even  to  avert 
disaster  in  case  of  war,  and  yet,  when  there  arises 
a  casus  belli,  Congress  feels  no  moral  compunction 
against  declaring  war  and  sending  its  ill-equipped, 
thin-ranked,  ill-provided  Army  to  the  front  to  face 
inescapable  death. 

If  the  troops  run  out  of  ammunition  on  the 
[  145  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

firing-line,  they  cannot  retire,  but  must  keep  their 
line  unbroken,  even  though  they  are  all  killed. 

At  the  battle  of  Spottsylvania  Court  House,  in 
the  Civil  War,  the  regiment  in  which  my  brother 
Leander  served  was  caught  in  exactly  this  posi- 
tion. They  had  been  drawn  up  to  defend  a  bag- 
gage train.  They  held  their  places,  and  loaded 
and  fired  until  their  ammunition  was  exhausted; 
and  still  they  held  their  places  under  a  rain  of 
bullets  from  the  enemy,  until  reenforcements 
came.  Of  that  company,  which  went  into  the  fight 
a  hundred  strong,  eighty-four  were  killed,  among 
them  my  brother. 

In  war,  the  lives  of  a  few  hundred,  or  even  a 
few  thousand  soldiers,  count  for  nothing,  if  the 
position  they  are  holding  has  a  greater  strategic 
value  than  their  lives.  When  food  runs  short,  it 
sometimes  becomes  strategically  a  good  bargain 
to  sacrifice  the  lives  of  a  thousand  men  in  a  forage 
raid  to  bring  in  a  thousand  sheep.  In  such  a  case, 
a  sheep  is  worth  more  than  a  man,  because  the 
sheep  can  be  eaten,  and  the  man  cannot. 

There  are  some  things  in  this  world  that  we 
are  able  to  know  are  absolutely  wrong.  Of  these, 
nothing  is  surer  than  that  it  is  wrong  to  forbid 
our  army  and  navy  oflScers  the  public  expression 
of  their  opinions,  which  would  give  the  country 
the  benefit  of  their  knovrledge  and  experience. 
Not  only  this,  but  it  is  a  great  injustice  to  the 
officers  of  the  Army  and  the  Navy,  for,  if  war 

[U6] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

comes,  it  is  they  who  will  have  to  stand  on  the 
firing-line — not  the  individuals  of  civilian  of- 
ficialdom. 

When,  in  the  near  future,  our  fleet  is  sent  to 
intercept  the  on-coming  superior  fleet  of  an  enemy, 
those  officers  who  must  stand  on  the  bridge  and 
at  their  posts  on  the  decks — and  go  down  with 
their  ships — are  the  very  men  now  gagged  by 
civilian  red  tape. 

If  they  could  speak,  and  tell  you  and  me  and 
all  of  us  the  truth  and  the  naked  truth,  then  very 
likely  their  lives  could  be  saved,  and  the  sacrifice 
of  their  ships  and  their  crews  avoided. 

If  the  actual  truth  about  our  defenselessness 
were  generally  appreciated,  our  whole  people,  as 
Antony  said  of  the  stones  of  Rome,  '*  would  rise 
and  mutiny"  against  the  legislative  and  bureau- 
cratic officialdom  and  the  fanatical  peace  propa- 
ganda that  are  teaching  the  people  ignorance  and 
folly  while  muting  the  tongues  of  those  who 
should  speak. 

A  nation  is  but  a  composite  individual.  Just 
as  the  male  head  of  the  family,  being  the  natural 
protector  of  the  family,  has,  in  all  ages,  needed 
strong  arms  for  the  defense  of  the  family,  so,  in 
all  ages,  have  nations  needed  strong  arms  for 
national  defense.  These  are  the  army  and  the 
navy.  When  army  and  navy  are  weak,  then  the 
nation,  regardless  of  other  elements  of  prowess,  is 
correspondingly  weak,  and,  more  than  that,  the 

[  H7  ], 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

nation  that  is  not  safeguarded  by  a  strong  army 
and  a  strong  navy  is  a  poor  nation,  regardless  of 
its  resources  and  visible  wealth.  For  the  value 
of  wealth  and  resources  is  very  largely  dependent 
upon  their  security — upon  the  power  of  the  army 
and  navy  to  defend  or  guarantee  the  title  to  them. 

That  man  is  not  a  rich  man,  the  title  to  whose 
property  is  questionable  and  likely  at  any  time 
successfully  to  be  disputed.  The  value  of  wealth 
depends  entirely  upon  the  ability  of  its  possessor 
to  control  and  utilize  it,  which  includes  the  ability 
to  defend  his  title  to  it. 

The  same  thing  holds  true  with  a  nation.  The 
value  of  its  wealth  depends  entirely  upon  its 
ability  to  control  and  utilize  it,  subject  absolutely 
to  ability  to  defend  it. 

You  and  I,  reader,  may  count  ourselves  worth 
a  certain  sum.  But  if  our  property  is  not  so  safe- 
guarded as  to  ensure  out  continued  possession  and 
benefit  of  it,  and  to  ensure  to  our  children  and 
our  children's  children  the  possession  and  benefit 
of  it,  then  we  are  by  no  means  so  rich  as  we 
should  be  were  our  title  guaranteed  by  adequate 
national  defenses. 

We  are  at  once  the  richest  country  in  the  world, 
and,  in  proportion  to  our  wealth,  the  poorest ;  for, 
in  proportion  to  our  wealth,  we  are  the  most  de- 
fenseless. By  consequence,  we  are  without  guar- 
anty of  title  to  our  property,  and  we  may  at  any 
time  be  robbed  of  it. 

[148] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY. 

fAn  adequate  army  and  an  adequate  navy  are 
the  only  possible  means  by  which  American  titles 
to  property  can  be  guaranteed^ 

Just  as  it  is  worth  all  it  costs,  and  more,  for 
owners  of  real  estate  to  have  the  title  to  their 
property  guaranteed  by  a  title-guarantee  com- 
pany, and  just  as  the  property  is  by  such  guaranty 
enhanced  in  value  more  than  the  cost  of  the  guar- 
anty, so  the  guaranty  of  title  to  American  prop- 
erty dependent  upon  an  adequate  army  and  navy 
is  worth  far  more  than  the  entire  cost  of  them,  by 
virtue  of  enhanced  values. 

When  a  nation,  like  the  United  States,  has  be- 
come a  "World  Power,  with  outlying  possessions 
in  distant  seas  and  within  the  spheres  of  influence 
of  other  powerful  nations,  it  assumes  obligations 
just  in  proportion  to  the  hazards  involved  in  the 
maintenance  of  title.  Also,  when  a  nation,  like 
the  United  States,  has  a  world-compassing  com- 
merce, its  obligations  are  just  as  large  as  its  com- 
merce, and  its  need  of  a  navy  adequate  to  defend 
its  commerce  is,  for  that  purpose  alone,  exactly 
as  great  as  its  need  of  the  commerce.  But,  in  addi- 
tion to  this  great  need,  there  is  the  still  greater 
need  of  a  navy  of  such  magnitude  and  potentiality 
as  effectually  to  safeguard  the  country  against 
invasion. 

Although  we  should  have  an  army  of  sufficient 
size  and  possessed  of  so  efficient  equipment  as  ulti- 
mately to  repel  invasion,  still  the  cost  in  life  and 

[149] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

treasure  for  repulsion  and  expulsion  would  exceed 
many  times  the  cost  of  the  warships  and  naval 
equipment  necessary  to  prevent  invasion. 

The  American  people  are  not  all  agreed  that  we 
should  have  a  navy.  There  is  a  very  large  per- 
centage of  the  population  who  believe  that  we 
ought  not  to  have  any  at  all.  But  there  is  one 
ground,  I  think,  for  common  agreement :  Admiral 
Austin  M.  Knight,  President  of  the  Naval  War 
College,  one  of  the  best-informed  and  ablest  of- 
ficers in  the  Navy,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most 
scholarly  men  in  the  country,  says : 

"//  we  are  to  have  a  navy  it  should  he  as  effi- 
cient as  it  can  possibly  be  made.  And  everybody 
who  knows  anything  about  the  Navy  knows  that 
this  is  not  its  present  condition/' 

I  shall  quote  further  from  a  recent  speech  of 
Admiral  Knight : 

*' There  is  much  about  the  Navy  which  is  splen- 
didly efficient.  But  as  a  whole  it  is  far  less  effi- 
cient than  it  can  and  ought  to  be.  Our  ships  are 
fine.  Our  officers  are  capable,  industrious,  and 
ambitious.  Our  enlisted  men  are  the  equals  of 
those  in  other  navies.  But  efficient  ships  and  of- 
^cers  and  men  do  not  alone  make  an  efficient 
navy.  They  must  be  welded  into  an  efficient  whole 
by  a  unity  of  organization  and  administration 

[150] 


Photo    by    Ernsi 


^:::^^Z,^y^?^^y^y^ 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

and  purpose  which  coordinates  their  capabilities 
and  directs  their  efforts  towards  a  common  end, 
wisely  selected  and  very  clearly  seen.  Here  is 
the  first  point  at  which  we  are  lacking.  We  are 
lacking  also  in  that  harmonious  composition  of 
the  fleet  which  is  needed  to  give  to  every  element 
of  it  the  support  that  it  needs  from  other  ele- 
ments, to  make  up  a  symmetrical  and  well-bal- 
anced whole.  And  we  are  lacking  to  a  marked 
degree  in  absolutely  essential  facilities  for  the 
care  and  preservation  of  our  ships,  especially  in 
the  matter  of  dry-docks. 

"Finally,  we  are  lacking  in  efficient  organiza- 
tion of  the  personnel.  Here,  so  far  as  officers  are 
concerned,  the  conditions  are  altogether  deplora- 
ble. In  a  service  like  the  Navy,  where  spirit  is 
everything,  where  enthusiasm  must  be  the  driv- 
ing power  back  of  every  activity,  I  ask  you  to  pic- 
ture the  effect  of  a  condition  where  a  young  of- 
ficer, graduating  from  the  Naval  Academy  full  of 
spirit  and  enthusiasm,  finds  himself  confronted 
with  a  prospect  of  promotion  to  the  grade  of  Lieu- 
tenant at  the  age  of  52  years. 

"If  you  ask  me  who  is  responsible  for  these 
conditions,  I  can  only  reply  that  the  responsibility 
comes  home  to  nearly  all  of  us.  Some  of  it,  I  am 
sure,  rests  with  me; — much  of  it,  I  believe,  with 
you.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  attributed  in  ex- 
cessive measure  to  any  one  administration  of  the 
Navy  Department,  for  it  has  existed  for  half  a 

[151] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

century  at  least.  So  let  us  not  cloud  the  issue  hy 
assuming  that  it  is  a  new  condition,  and  that  all 
administrations  up  to  some  recent  date  have  been 
models  of  wisdom  and  efficiency,  or  that  Naval 
Officers  themselves  have  always  been  ready  with 
good  advice.  Speaking  as  the  representative  of 
Naval  Officers  as  a  body,  I  frankly  admit  that  we 
have  not  always  seen  clearly  what  was  needed, 
and  have  not  always  worked  together  even  for 
ends  ivhich  we  did  see  clearly.  As  for  the  Secre- 
taries of  the  Navy,  it  is  not  surprising  that  many 
of  them  have  failed  to  realize  that  their  first  duty 
was  to  strive,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  to  pro- 
mote the  War  efficiency  of  the  Navy  as  a  whole. 
Many  of  them  have  not  remained  in  office  long 
enough  to  learn  this.  Some,  perhaps,  have  real- 
ized it  more  or  less  clearly  but  have  not  found  at 
hand  an  organization  through  which  they  could 
produce  results.  A  few  have  made  material  con- 
tributions toward  improved  conditions.  .  .  . 

"A  large  part  of  the  responsibility,  especially 
that  connected  with  the  small  size  and  the  unbal- 
anced composition  of  the  Fleet  and  the  lack  of 
dry-docks,  rests  with  Congress,  which  has  always 
approached  naval  legislation  from  the  wrong  side 
so  far  as  efficiency  is  concerned; — asking,  not 
what  do  we  need  for  efficiency?  but  what  can  we 
afford  to  spend  for  efficiency?  Behind  the  re- 
sponsibility of  Congress  lies  the  responsibility  of 
the  Country, — and  you,  gentlemen,  represent  the 

[152] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

Country — because  it  has  not  insisted  upon  having 
what  was  needed,  without  reference  to  cost.  It 
may  be  that  this  attitude  of  both  Congress  and 
the  Country  is  necessary  and  even  inevitable.  But 
I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  this  great 
Country  of  ours  can  afford  to  have  anything  in 
the  way  of  national  defense  which  it  needs,  and  I 
assume  that  all  present  here  to-night  agree  that 
we  need  a  navy,  and  if  a  navy,  then  an  efficient 
one,  and  that  ivhatever  efficiency  costs  is  the 
measure  of  what  we  can  afford  to  spend. 

''What  constitutes  an  adequate  Navy  for  the 
United  States?  The  answer  will  depend,  of 
course,  upon  the  purpose  for  which  we  assume 
that  the  Navy  is  to  be  used.  We  are  all  agreed,  I 
presume,  that  it  is  not  to  be  used  for  aggression. 
Is  it,  then,  to  be  used  solely  for  defense?  If  we 
answer  'yes,'  we  ought  to  do  so  with  a  full  rec- 
ognition of  what  we  are  to  defend  and  also  of  the 
elementary  maxim  that  the  best  defense  is  a 
vigorous  offense.  In  other  words,  no  ^natter  how 
resolute  we  may  be  to  use  our  Navy  only  for  re- 
pelling aggression,  it  does  not  follow  that  we 
should  plan  for  meeting  the  aggressor  only  at  our 
gates.  Even  if  we  had  no  interests  outside  our 
borders  and  no  responsibilities  for  the  defense  of 
our  outlying  possessions  and  dependencies,  we 
should  still,  as  reasonable  beings  not  wholly  ig- 
norant of  history,  prepare  to  project  our  battle 
line  toward  the  enemy's  coasts  and  to  assume  a 

[153] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

course  which  would  throw  upon  him  the  burden 
of  replying  to  our  initiative.  In  this  sense,  then, 
we  need  a  navy  for  offense;  that  is  to  say,  for  of- 
fensive action  with  a  defensive  purpose.  In  shap- 
ing our  plans  along  these  lines,  we  should  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  the  policy  which  dictates 
the  measure  of  our  defense  must  take  full  note  of 
the  larger  national  policy  which  it  is  to  enforce; — 
in  relation,  for  example,  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
the  Panama  Canal,  the  Philippines,  and  other 
matters  which  are  at  once  of  national  and  of  in- 
ternational significance/^ 

If  the  United  States  does  not  need  a  navy,  then 
we  shouild  dispose  of  the  fighting  ships  we  have 
and  disband  the  personnel.  K,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  do  need  a  navy,  there  is  one  consideration, 
and  one  consideration  alone,  that  can  rightfully 
determine  the  size  and  power  of  that  navy — 
namely,  its  adequacy  to  serve  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  intended. 

A  fighting  ship  is  built,  equipped  with  arma- 
ment, manned,  and  coaled  for  one  sole  purpose — 
that  of  adequacy  in  a  fight.  Its  success  or  failure 
— in  short,  its  usefulness  or  uselessness — depends 
entirely  upon  its  fighting  adequacy  against  a  pos- 
sible opponent.  An  ocean-liner  is  built,  manned, 
and  coaled  to  fight  tempestuous  seas,  and  safely 
make  the  voyage ;  but  unless  the  ship  is  built  suf- 
ficiently staunch,  has  sufficiently  powerful  engines, 

[154] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

is  well  manned,  and  has  coal  enough  for  the  trip, 
it  is  in  no  sense  a  success,  or  useful;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  an  utter  failure  and  worse  than  use- 
less. 

(  The  same  thing  holds  true  of  a  navy:  Unless  it 
can  defeat  the  fleet  of  an  enemy,  and  return  from 
the  voyage,  it  is  a  failure,  and  worse  than  use- 
less. 

A  naval  disaster  in  our  present  condition  would 
be  likely  to  be  an  irreparable  calamity,  while  a 
naval  victory  might  likely  win  the  war.  It  is  for 
this  big  difference  that  we  need  a  navy.  Conse- 
quently, the  entire  use  of  a  navy  may  be  summed 
up  in  the  one  word,  superiority  over  a  possible 
enemy. 

When  two  men  run  for  a  municipal  office  all  the 
votes  cast  for  the  loser  are  of  no  value  to  the 
loser,  and  all  campaign  funds  spent  in  getting 
them  have  been  wasted;  the  only  votes  that  are 
of  value  to  the  winner  are  those  that  constitute 
his  majority.  Similarly,  in  a  naval  battle,  it  is 
the  majority  of  votes  cast  by  the  winning  guns 
that  secures  the  victory,  for  all  of  the  other  votes 
cast  by  the  guns  are  balanced  by  an  equal  number 
of  votes  cast  by  the  guns  of  the  enemy. 

The  total  value  of  a  navy  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  value  of  one  battleship,  which  gives  a  con- 
quering preponderance  in  gun-fire. 

Admiral  Knight  recently  said: 
[1551 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

**The  War  College  considers  that  every  effort 
of  the  Fleet,  and  every  effort  of  the  Department 
in  connection  with  the  Fleet,  should  have  for  its 
sole  aim  the  war  efficiency  of  the  Fleet.  Every 
effort  which  does  not  directly  contribute  to  this 
end  is  in  itself  a  wasteful  expenditure  of  energy, 
and  so  far  as  it  is  a  diversion  from  this  end,  is 
distinctly  harmful.'* 

Among  all  those  who  have  oecupied  positions  of 
trust  and  power,  and  whose  business  it  has  been 
to  recognize  and  provide  for  our  naval  and  mili- 
tary needs,  it  is  remarkable  how  few  have  had 
the  necessary  breadth  of  view  to  grasp  the 
strategic  situation,  and  perceive  its  requirements 
without  making  silly  and  costly  mistakes,  like  that 
of  the  construction  of  our  first  three  battleships, 
the  Oregon,  the  Massachusetts,  and  the  Indiana, 
merely  for  coast-defense  purposes.  None  of  these 
ships  was  qualified  for  service  in  distant  waters. 
Then,  when  the  war  with  Spain  came,  we  held  our 
breath  while  the  Oregon  rounded  the  Horn.  Think 
of  the  United  States  of  America  being  in  such 
straits  for  fighting  ships  as  actually  to  hang  na- 
tional hope  on  the  old  Oregon.  A  single  shell 
from  one  of  the  huge  guns  of  an  up-to-date  British 
super-dreadnought  has  a  striking  force  equal  to 
the  energy  required  to  lift  the  old  battleship 
Oregon  bodily  to  a  height  of  more  than  six  feet. 

There  is  no  middle  course  for  the  United  States. 
[156] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

We  must  play  the  game  as  a  World  Power,  and  as 
other  nations  are  playing  the  game.  To  get  fair 
play  we  must  provide  ourselves  with  the  weapons 
with  which  they  are  providing  themselves.  If  we 
do  not,  we  shall  be  brushed  aside  with  a  ruthless 
hand,  and  shall. find  our  commerce  circumscribed 
on  every  side  by  inimical  spheres  of  influence — 
dead  lines  over  which  we  shall  not  dare  to  pass. 

It  is  necessary  for  us  not  only  to  fortify  the 
Panama  Canal,  but  also  to  maintain  a  navy  of 
sufficient  prowess  to  enable  us  to  reach  that  Canal 
at  all  times,  and  under  all  conditions,  for  it  is  in- 
dispensable that  we  maintain  communication  with 
our  defenses  there. 

Should  we  become  involved  in  war  with  Eng- 
land or  Germany,  the  navy  of  either  being  more 
powerful  than  ours,  we  should  be  immediately  iso- 
lated from  the  Panama  Canal  zone.  Similarly, 
Japan  could  successfully  blockade  the  Pacific  ap- 
proaches to  the  Canal. 

We  have,  at  enormous  expense,  cut  a  great 
waterway  through  the  Isthmus,  and  established  a 
short  route  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific. 
The  Canal  is  our  property.  Other  nations  of  the 
world  may  use  it.  We  generously  built  it  for  the 
world's  welfare.  It  will,  however,  be  valuable  in 
time  of  war  for  the  passage  of  our  warships;  in 
fact,  it  will  be  a  vital  necessity  to  us.  But  our 
ability  to  use  it  for  that  purpose  will  be  entirely 
dependent  upon  the  ability  of  our  Navy  to  keep 

[157] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

the  sea  clear  of  an  enemy's  ships  at  either  end. 

The  war  with  Spain  was  very  useful,  because 
it  brought  the  truth  home  to  us  that  the  command 
of  the  American  seas  is  absolutely  vital  to  us. 
Immediately  following  the  Spanish  War,  we  rap- 
idly built  up  our  Navy,  until  it  became  second  only 
to  that  of  England.  But  we  have,  of  late  years, 
been  slipping  back,  until  now  our  Navy  occupies 
third  place,  with  a  likelihood  of  soon  dropping 
down  to  fifth  place. 

In  1905,  England  evolved  the  great  modem 
dreadnought,  which  was  as  much  of  a  revolution 
over  existing  types  of  fighting  ships  as  was  Erics- 
son's Monitor  over  the  fighting  ships  of  its  time. 
The  dreadnought  relegated  all  existing  battleships 
to  the  second  line. 

The  dreadnought  was  so  much  superior  in  size, 
in  speed,  in  gun-fire,  and  in  all  defensive  and  of- 
fensive qualities,  that  it  took  its  place  at  once  as 
the  indispensable  first-line  battleship.  England, 
Germany,  France,  Japan,  each  recognizing  the  tre- 
mendous superiority  of  the  dreadnought,  enlarged 
their  naval  appropriations,  and  built  dread- 
noughts. 

The  American  Congress,  however,  failed  to  rec- 
ognize the  serious  character  of  the  crisis.  It 
failed  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  dreadnought 
meant  a  revolution  in  battleship  construction.  In- 
stead of  naval  appropriations  being  increased  ac- 
cording to  our  needs,  they  were  decreased.    As 

[158] 


TEE  NEEDS  OP  OUR  NAVY 

a  result,  there  are  now  two  nations  at  least  that 
could  whip  us  off  the  seas,  while  the  navies  both 
of  France  and  Japan  are  likely  very  soon  to  rank 
above  us. 

All  our  illusions  about  our  splendid  isolation 
would  vanish  with  the  destruction  of  our  fleet.  A 
European  Power  could,  in  less  than  two  weeks, 
land  upon  our  shores  an  army  of  from  100,000  to 
200,000  men.  Here,  the  question  naturally  arises : 
How  would  they  be  able  to  get  past  our  coast 
fortifications?  We  have  spent  about  $160,000,000 
on  our  coast  fortifications,  but  they  were  never 
intended  for  the  protection  of  our  entire  coast 
line.  They  were  intended  only  to  defend  our  im- 
portant cities  and  harbors  and  naval  bases.  They 
actually  protect  but  a  very  small  fraction  of  our 
many  thousand  miles  of  shore. 

As  the  Scientific  American  has  justly  stated,  our 
coast  fortifications  should  not  be  so  named;  in- 
sl^ad,  they  should  be  designated  as  city-and- 
harbor  fortifications. 

It  would  be  quite  impracticable  adequately  to 
defend  our  long  stretch  of  seaboard  by  means  of 
coast  fortifications.  The  only  coast  fortifications 
that  can  effectually  serve  us  are  battleships.  It 
is  absolutely  indispensable  to  our  integrity  as  a 
nation  that  we  have  a  fleet  sufficiently  powerful  to 
defend  our  whole  coast  against  invasion. 

These  questions  present  themselves:  How  are 
we  to  ascertain  what  our  naval  needs  are?    How 

[159] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

shall  we  prepare  to  meet  them?  Of  whom  shall 
we  seek  guidance? 

Several  years  ago  the  Navy  Department  organ- 
ized the  General  Board  of  the  Navy,  headed  by 
Admiral  Dewey.  This  Board  studied  our  needs 
with  great  diligence  and  care,  and  Congress  was 
advised  accordingly. 

All  the  leading  navies  of  the  world  have  a  tech- 
nical body  corresponding  to  oiir  General  Board, 
but  in  other  countries  that  body  speaks  with  au- 
thority, while  our  General  Board  may  only  ad- 
vise. Congress  pays  but  little  attention  to  these 
advisers.  It  is  a  principle  of  our  government  that 
the  voice  of  the  greatest  number  shall  rule,  and 
the  people  of  this  country  have  cpme  to  believe 
that  the  majority  is  more  likely  to  be  right  than 
the  minority.  Many  falsely  believe  that  in  the 
matter  of  wisdom  there  is  safety  in  mere  numbers ; 
that  the  opinion  of  a  hundred  men  is  of  more  value 
than  the  opinion  of  a  single  man. 

Multiplying  the  number  of  individuals  possess- 
ing a  limited  amount  of  knowledge  and  an  unlim- 
ited amount  of  ignorance  does  not  raise  the  high- 
water  mark  of  their  united  wisdom.  Wisdom 
means  intellectual  height.  Some  men  are  seven 
feet  high  intellectually,  while  others  are  not  more 
than  a  foot  high. 

The  average  of  conscientiousness  is  much  higher 
than  the  average  of  intelligence.  A  man's  sin- 
cerity cannot  be  used  as  a  yard-stick  for  measur- 

[160] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY, 

ing  his  intellectual  height.  Sincerity  and  con- 
scientiousness are  sister  entities,  and  are  largely 
a  measure  of  intellectual  bias,  whose  other  name 
is  prejudice. 

We  may  compare  the  intellectual  height  of  men 
with  one  another  in  a  manner  similar  to  compar- 
ing their  physical  height,  only  there  is  a  much 
greater  disparity  in  the  intellectual  than  there  is 
in  the  physical.  If  we  take  a  man  six  feet  high, 
and  stand  another  man  beside  him  of  equal  or 
less  height,  the  height  of  the  two  men  is  no  greater 
than  that  of  the  first  man.  If  we  add  a  hundred 
men  of  average  height,  we  shall  find  that  the  aver- 
age height  of  the  whole  line  is  considerably  less 
than  that  of  the  six-footer  with  whom  we  started. 

The  same  thing  holds  true  with  the  intellectual 
height  of  men.  We  may  put  a  man  in  each  chair 
in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  and  in  the 
Senate,  and  the  total  height  of  the  voting  wisdom 
of  the  majority  will  be  only  the  average  height  of 
that  majority,  and  it  will  be  less  than  that  of  one 
man  who  might  be  selected  for  his  wisdom  from 
their  number. 

Any  one  member  of  the  General  Board  of  the 
United  States  Navy  is  likely  to  know  much  more 
about  the  needs  of  the  Navy  and  what  Congress 
should  do  for  the  Navy  than  is  known  by  all  mem- 
bers of  the  House  and  Senate  put  together. 

Representative  Gardner  very  possibly  knows 
more  about  our  naval  and  military  needs  and 

[161] 


DEFENSELESS  AMEPdCA 

what  Congress  ought  to  do  for  the  Army  and  Navy 
than  is  known  by  all  the  other  members  in  Con- 
gress. In  fact,  he  may  likely  know  more  about 
the  subject  and  be  able  to  advise  the  country  with 
greater  wisdom  upon  our  needs  for  national  de- 
fense than  a  line  of  average  Congressmen  stand- 
ing shoulder  to  shoulder  in  a  string  that  would 
girdle  the  earth. 

Napoleon  said,  **He  goes  fast  who  goes  alone/' 
Always,  the  great  national  issues  that  make  his- 
tory have  been  decided  in  each  case  by  one  man, 
and  all  great  national  crises  have  depended  upon 
the  decisive  action  of  one  man.  In  recognition  of 
this  principle,  Eome,  in  times  of  great  peril,  chose 
a  dictator. 

The  Medo-Persian  empire  was  the  architecture 
of  one  man,  Cyrus  the  Great.  The  Persian 
empire  was  conquered  and  destroyed  by  the 
genius  of  one  man,  Alexander  the  Great.  Eome 
was  brought  to  her  knees  by  one  man,  Hannibal. 
He  ultimately  failed,  and  Carthage  was  de- 
stroyed, because  of  one  man,  an  eloquent 
enemy  of  Hannibal,  Hanno,  at  home  in  Car- 
thage, who  was  a  peace-advocate.  Eome  was 
saved  from  destruction  at  the  hands  of  the 
Teutons  and  Cimbri  solely  by  the  military  genius 
of  Marius.  Caesar  walked  alone  through  Gaul, 
solitary  in  his  height  above  his  whole  army;  by 
comparison,  all  men  of  his  age  were  pygmies. 
Charles   Martel  alone   saved  Europe   from   the 

[162] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVT 

Moors.  Peter  the  Great,  the  amazing  architect 
of  Russia,  was  impatient  of  advice  and  brooked 
no  interference  with  his  purpose.  Cromwell  alone 
was  the  governing  brain  of  England.  Frederick 
the  Great  was  great  because  he  played  the  game 
of  war  lone-handed.  Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  so 
intellectually  tall  that  he  towered  over  Europe  like 
a  colossus,  and  he  played  kings  like  pawns  in  the 
game  of  war.  Bismarck  played  a  lone  hand  in 
the  creation  of  the  German  empire.  During  the 
entire  Civil  War,  Abraham  Lincoln  parried  with 
wit  the  advice  of  friends.  To  his  enemies,  he 
masked  with  mirth  an  inscrutable  purpose,  while 
he  sat  solemn  and  solitary  at  the  helm. 

So,  always  and  always,  it  has  been.  Great  na- 
tional games  have  been  games  of  solitaire. 

"We  need  a  national  leader  who  shall  have  such 
size  and  quality  of  brain,  and  be  possessed  of  such 
soul,  courage,  and  wisdom  as  shall  qualify  him  to 
use  the  power  of  his  high  office  to  the  full  to  help 
save  this  country  from  the  dire  calamity  that  is 
impending. 

Although  the  General  Board  knows  a  thousand 
times  more  about  our  needs  and  what  we  ought 
to  do  to  provide  for  them  than  is  known  to  the 
entire  American  Congress,  still  Congress,  dom- 
inated by  the  pride  of  ignorance,  believes  that  it 
knows  best,  oblivious  to  the  fact  that  the  voiced 
ignorance  of  a  thousand  men  may  have  less  truth 
in  it  than  the  voiced  wisdom  of  a  single  man. 

[163] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

Members  of  Congress  assume  the  responsibility 
of  deciding  what  the  strength  of  the  Navy  shall 
be,  and  what  shall  be  its  composition.  Congress, 
not  the  General  Board,  decides  how  many  battle- 
ships, cruisers,  destroyers,  and  submarines  we 
shall  have ;  how  many  officers  and  men  they  shall 
carry.  The  result  is  disastrous,  for  our  Navy  is 
inefficient  and  ill-balanced.  It  is  dangerously  weak 
where  it  should  be  strongest. 

During  the  administration  of  Lord  Haldane 
(then  Mr.  Haldane)  the  British  Admiralty  Board 
resigned  because  four  battleships  had  been  cut 
from  the  estimates  for  new  construction,  which 
were  set  at  the  minimum  of  national  requirements ; 
and  it  is  due  to  forcing  the  matter  by  this  action 
that  the  British  have  the  four  big  battle-cruisers, 
of  the  Queen  Elizabeth  type,  carrying  15-inch 
guns,  which  throw  a  shell  weighing  1,925  pounds, 
and  which  out-range  all  other  guns  on  ships. 

Robert  Blatchford,  whom  Mr.  Winston  Church-* 
ill  dubbed  a  ' '  ridiculous  Jingo, ' '  said,  in  a  remark- 
able series  of  articles  written  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  present  war  for  The  Daily  Mail  in  the  hope 
of  arousing  the  British  public  to  their  danger*. 

'^But  the  British  people  do  not  believe  it.  The 
British  people  take  little  interest  in  foreign  af- 
fairs, and  less  in  military  matters.  The  British 
people  do  not  want  to  bother,  they  do  not  want  to 
pay,  they  do  not  want  to  fight,  and  they  regard, 

[164] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY. 

as  cranks  or  nuisances  all  who  try  to  warn  them 
of  their  danger. 

'*The  danger  is  very  great,  and  is  very  near. 
It  is  greater  and  nearer  than  it  was  when  I  began 
to  give  warning  of  it,  more  than  five  years 
ago.  .  .  . 

''The  people  are  conceited,  self-indulgent,  de- 
cadent, and  greedy.  They  want  to  keep  the  Em- 
pire without  sacrifice  or  service.  They  will  shout 
for  the  Empire,  but  they  will  not  pay  for  the  Em- 
pire or  fight  for  it.  Germany  knows  this.  The 
world  knows  it.  The  Cabinet  Ministers  know  it. 
But  no  Minister  dares  to  say  it.  We  are  in  sore 
need  of  a  man.  .  .  . 

''While  the  articles  have  been  appearing  in  The 
Daily  Mail  I  have  received  letters  of  strong  ap- 
proval from  Lord  Roberts  and  Lord  Charles 
Beresford,  and  from  many  officers  of  the  Army 
and  the  Navy. 

"Are  all  these  men  ignorant  and  stupid,  and 
are  political  wisdom  and  military  knowledge  con- 
fined in  these  islands  to  the  lawyer  who  runs  our 
Army,  the  lawyer  who  runs  our  Navy,  and  the 
simpering  nonentities  who  edit  the  Nonconform- 
ist organs? 

"The  Liberal  Government  made  a  fatal  blunder 
when  they  hesitated  to  lay  down  the  four  extra 
dreadnoughts.  They  were  trying  to  economize. 
They  were  hoping  for  a  cheaper  way  out  of  the 
difficulty.    They  were  waiting  for  something  ta 

[165] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

turn  up.  The  Germans  knew  this,  and  made  a 
tremendous  effort  to  get  ahead  of  us.  It  is  not 
safe  to  trust  the  tradition  of  Micawber  against 
the  tradition  of  blood  and  iron. 

''Had  the  British  Government,  instead  of  try- 
ing to  save  a  few  millions,  ashed  the  nation 
boldly  for  the  full  amount  required,  and  set  about 
the  necessary  work  in  earnest,  the  Pan-Germans 
might  have  had  an  unpleasant  time  with  the  Ger- 
man taxpayer. 

''It  is  time  our  Government  and  people  recog- 
nized the  facts.  Germany  has  challenged  us.  If 
we  show  weakness  we  are  lost.  We  carinot  bluff 
our  enemy.  We  cannot  evade  him.  We  cannot 
buy  safety  for  an  old  song.  We  can  only  hold  our 
own  against  so  powerful  and  resolute  an  antag- 
onist by  showing  an  equal  power  and  resolution. 

"In  the  crisis  to  which  I  have  just  referred  ive 
took  the  weak  course  when  we  ought  to  have  taken 
the  strong  one.  Economy  at  such  a  time  is  the 
most  profligate  extravagance. 

"When  the  Government  held  the  four  dread- 
noughts back,  they  should  have  been  pushing  a 
dozen  dreadnoughts  forward;  when  they  tried  to 
save  a  few  millions  they  should  have  laid  out  fifty 
millions.  Instead  of  reducing  the  artillery  and 
pottering  about  with  a  handful  of  Territorials 
they  should  have  demanded  an  Army. 

"  But  the  Cabinet  were  afraid.  We  want  a 
man.  .  .  . 

[166] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

**I  do  not  want  war;  I  want  peace.  I  am  not 
an  enemy  of  the  Germans,  hut  a  friend.  I  like 
Germany;  hut  I  love  England,  as  a  man  loves  his 
mother,  or  his  wife,  or  his  comrade,  or  his  home. 

"And  the  Empire  is  in  danger;  and  we  are  un- 
ready; and  we  need  a  man.  .  .  . 

"If  only  we  can  get  the  British  people  to  un- 
derstand in  time.'' 

Now,  reader,  carefully  weigh  this  wonderfully 
prophetic  language,  spoken  by  an  Englishman  to 
the  English  people,  before  the  great  war  came, 
which  is  now  wringing  millions  upon  millions  of 
pounds  sterling  from  the  English  purse,  and 
wringing  blood  from  the  veins  of  thousands  upon 
thousands  of  young  men  gathered  from  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  whole  empire,  and  wringing 
tears  from  millions  of  mourning  eyes ;  let  us  take 
this  powerful  appeal  of  Blatchford  to  the  Eng- 
lish people  and  conceive  it  to  be  my  own  appeal 
now,  to  you  and  the  whole  American  people.  We 
are  in  the  same  danger  that  England  was,  and 
unless  we  prepare  as  England  did  not  prepare  we 
shall  be  wrung  even  more  than  England  is  wrung. 

Our  naval  officers,  who,  more  than  all  others, 
know  what  we  should  have  in  kinds  of  ships,  in 
numbers  of  ships,  and  in  personnel,  are  ignored. 
It  is  a  case  of  the  blind  leading  those  who  see 
clearly. 

After  the  most  careful  and  thorough  investiga- 

•      [167] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

tion  and  weighing  of  our  Navy*s  actual  needs,  tte 
General  Board  of  the  Navy  figures  closely,  as  near 
to  the  danger  point  as  they  dare,  in  order  that 
their  recommendations  may  stand  a  better  chance 
of  approval  by  Congress.  But  Congress  assumes 
that,  being  naval  men,  they  have  an  ax  to  grind 
and  are  naturally  strongly  biased  in  the  direction 
of  extravagance,  and  the  Board's  wise  recom- 
m,endations  are  accordingly  discounted. 

We  have  only  33  battleships  less  than  twenty 
years  old,  eleven  of  which  belong  to  the  second 
line,  with  four  building  and  authorized,  which  will 
make  37  in  all.  The  General  Board  thinks  that 
we  should  have  48  battleships  less  than  twenty 
years  old. 

We  have  but  68  destroyers,  while  the  General 
Board  thinks  that  we  should  have  192  destroyers. 

The  General  Board  thinks  that  we  could  squeeze 
along  with  a  minimum  of  71,000  men  to  man  our 
present  fleet,  without  taking  into  account  addi- 
tional trained  men  needed  for  signal  and  tactical 
work  on  board  auxiliary  vessels,  and  without  any 
provision  for  warships  now  building.  As  a  bare 
fact,  we  have  only  52,300  men.  Thus  we  are  short 
18,000  of  the  men  needed  to  man  the  fleet  we  have. 
In  addition  to  this,  there  is  a  shortage  in  sight  of 
4,000  men  required  to  man  the  fighting  ships  that 
will  go  into  commission  in  1915  and  1916. 

Our  naval  experts  tell  Congress  that  we  shall 
need  50,000  more  men  for  the  Navy  as  soon  as  they 

[  168  ] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

can  be  enlisted  and  drilled;  but  the  ears  of  Con- 
gress are  deaf  to  the  appeal.  Yet  a  whisper  for 
a  new  post-office  can  be  heard  by  a  Congressm^an 
from  his  home  district  a  thousand  miles  away. 

We  have  only  7,700  men  in  our  naval  militia; 
We  have  no  naval  reserve^ 

Congressman  Gardner  informs  ns,  as  a  result 
of  his  investigations,  that  it  would  take  five  years 
to  get  a  reserve  of  25,000  sailors. 

Our  best-informed  naval  officers  recommend  for 
coast  defense  the  immediate  construction  of  a 
hundred  submarines  of  the  latest  and  most  suc- 
cessful type.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  number  is 
far  too  few.  We  now  have  but  58  submarines, 
including  those  built,  building,  and  authorized  to 
be  built.  Many  of  those  we  have  are  obsolete  and 
absolutely  worthless. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  report  by 
the  General  Board  of  the  Navy  in  1913,  which  is 
very  enlightening: 

*^The  absence  of  any  definite  naval  policy  on 
our  part,  except  in  the  General  Board,  and  the 
failure  of  the  people,  Congress,  and  the  executive 
government  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  such  a 
policy,  has  already  placed  us  in  a  position  of  in- 
feriority which  may  lead  to  war;  and  this  inferi- 
ority is  progressive  and  will  continue  to  increase 
until  the  necessity  for  a  definite  policy  is  recog- 
nized and  that  policy  put  into  operation.^' 

[169] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

A  fleet,  to  be  effective,  must  be  so  constituted, 
organized,  and  trained  as  to  benefit  in  the  highest 
degree  from  team  work.  It  must  be  able,  like  a 
baseball  tean;i,  to  act  with  the  precision  of  a 
machine. 

In  addition  to  battleships,  a  fleet  must  have  an 
appropriate  number  of  battle-cruisers,  smaller 
cruisers,  transports,  scouts,  destroyers,  subma- 
rines, colliers,  tank-ships,  supply  ships,  repair 
ships,  mine-laying  ships,  tenders,  and  gunboats. 
Hospital  ships  should  not  be  forgotten. 

Admiral  Fiske  says : 

''We  have  only  one  mine-layer.  We  need  five 
additional  mine-layers.  On  board  that  one  mine- 
layer are  only  336  mines.  Germany  had  20,000 
mines  when  the  war  started." 

A  fleet  without  fuel-ships  is  like  a  fleet  without 
stokers.  A  fleet  without  scouts  is  blind.  It  cannot 
see  the  enemy's  movements,  while  its  own  move- 
ments lie  under  the  eyes  of  the  enemy.  The 
videttes  are  called  the  eyes  of  an  army.  Sim- 
ilarly, the  scouts  of  a  fleet  are  the  eyes  of  the 
fleet.  A  fleet  without  these  eyes,  when  hunted  by 
a  fleet  that  has  them,  is  in  the  same  position  as  a 
hunted  ostrich  with  its  head  hidden  in  the  sand. 
Of  these  fast  scouts,  with  minimum  speed  of  25-30 
knots  an  hour,  we  have  only  three;  Germany  has 
14,  and  Great  Britain  has  31. 

[170] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

Two  fleets  maneuvering  for  attack — one  pro- 
vided with  scouts  and  the  other  without  them — 
are  relatively  in  the  position  of  two  men,  armed 
with  revolvers,  fighting  in  a  room,  one  blindfolded 
and  the  other  with  eyes  uncovered. 
i  As  Admiral  Knight  has  observed,  battleships 
alone  do  not  make  a  fleet,  much  less  a  navy.  Our 
fleet  is  greatly  weakened  by  our  lack  of  destroyers. 
A  fleet  should  always  be  accompanied  by  a  large 
number  of  these  vessels  to  support  the  scouts,  and 
also  to  do  scout  duty  themselves.  They  stiffen 
the  screen  about  the  battleships,  and,  when  an 
opening  is  present,  they  are  ready  to  dash  against 
the  enemy. 

In  the  Civil  War  and  in  the  Spanish  War  we 
were  able  largely  to  employ  improvised  merchant 
vessels  for  fuel-ships  and  scouts ;  for  the  sole  rea- 
son that  our  enemies  were  even  more  miserably 
unprepared  than  ourselves.  Had  we,  at  the  time 
of  the  Spanish  War,  been  called  upon  to  fight  a 
really  first-class  Power,  we  should  have  been 
swept  off  the  seas. 

Fuel-ships  and  scouts  cannot  be  improvised 
under  modern  conditions.  They  must  be  ready  be- 
fore war  comes.  It  is  just  as  fallacious  to  imagine 
that  we  can  strengthen  our  Navy  with  improvised 
ships  and  personnel  after  war  is  declared,  and  get 
it  in  trim  to  meet  a  modem  fleet  in  the  pink  of 
condition  of  preparedness,  as  it  would  be  for  an 
invalid  cripple  to  imagine  that  he  could  train  and 

[171] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

get  into  condition  for  a  victorious  fight  with  a 
John  L.  Sullivan  after  entering  the  ring. 

Of  all  arts  and  sciences,  that  of  war  is  the  most 
highly  specialized.  The  greatest  intelligence  and 
skill  are  called  into  play  to  produce  special  tools, 
and  to  render  their  use  highly  efficient. 

(The  armies  and  navies  of  the  European  nations 
and  of  Japan  are  trained,  just  as  college  athletes 
are  trained  for  boat-racing,  baseball,  football,  and 
competitive  contests  of  the  gymnasium.  The  per- 
sonnel is  kept  in  the  pink  of  condition  for  prompt 
and  decisive  individual  effort  and  also  for  su- 
preme collective  effort  in  team  work. 

A  pugilist  finds  it  necessary  to  train  with  the 
most  complete  thoroughness  to  get  himself  into 
prime  condition  for  a  fight,  while  his  opponent  is 
training  in  the  same  manner.  When  they  meet, 
it  is  not  the  strength,  skill,  and  endurance  of  the 
normal  man  that  counts  in  the  fight,  but  it  is  the 
supernormal  manhood  that  has  been  added  to  the 
normal  man.  An  ordinary  untrained  citizen,  al- 
though he  may  possess  undeveloped  resources 
equal  to  those  of  the  trained  pugilist,  would  have 
no  chance  whatever  in  a  fight  with  him. 

Similarly,  such  an  army  and  a  navy  as  we 
should  be  able  to  improvise  in  time  of  war  would 
have  no  more  chance  of  success  against  an  army 
and  fleet  of  a  European  nation  or  of  Japan  than 
the  average  citizen  would  have  with  a  skilled, 
toughened,  and  hardened  pugilist. 

[172] 


THE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

There  is  one  source  of  our  naval  weakness  that 
of  itself  alone  may  bring  disaster.  It  is  incom- 
prehensible that  such  a  condition  should  be  al- 
lowed to  exist.  When  a  fleet  goes  into  distant 
waters,  it  should  have  a  nearby  base.  We  have 
neither  the  coaling  stations  nor  the  dry-docks  and 
harbors  of  refuge  that  are  absolutely  indispensa- 
ble to  the  fleet  of  a  country  with  world  pre- 
tensions. 

It  is  absolutely  vital  that  we  should  be  able  to 
defend  the  Panama  Canal,  but  we  have  no  dry- 
docks  or  efficient  repair-shops  there,  and  we  have 
none  within  a  thousand  miles  of  there. 

A  couple  of  million  dollars  well  spent  to  remedy 
this  defect  might.  Admiral  Knight  declares,  very 
conceivably  double  the  efficiency  of  the  fleet  in  a 
critical  emergency  by  making  it  possible  for  every 
ship  to  go  out  in  perfect  condition. 

We  have  capable  naval  bureaus  of  Ordnance, 
Construction,  and  Repair,  and  for  the  direction 
of  personnel;  but  these  bureaus  are  not  responsi- 
ble for  the  readiness  of  the  fleet  for  war.  Admiral 
Knight  suggests  a  remedy.    He  says : 

''This  is  the  last  and  great  defect  in  the  ef- 
ficiency of  the  Navy.  How  shall  it  be  remedied? 
The  answer  is,  I  think,  hy  the  creation  in  the  Navy 
Department  of  a  'Division  of  Strategy  and  Opera- 
tions' preferably  not  co-equal  with  the  present 
Bureaus  hut  superior  to  them  and  standing  be- 

[173] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

tween  them  and  the  Secretary.  This  arrangement 
would  be  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  all  the 
activities  of  the  present  Bureaus  should  lead  up 
to  the  Secretary  through  a  channel  which  coor- 
dinates them  all  and  directs  them  toward  war 
efficiency. 

''The  title  proposed  for  the  new  office:  Di- 
vision OF  Strategy  and  Operations,  covers  very 
completely  the  ground  that  I  have  in  mind.    As 
standing  for  Strategy  this  Division  would  plan 
what  to  do;  and  as  standing  for  Operations,  it 
would  direct  the  execution  of  its  plans.   It  would 
correspond  more  or  less  closely  with  the  General 
Staff  of  the  Army  and  the  First  Sea  Lord  of  the 
British  Admiralty,  whose  duties  are  thus  defined: 
"1.   Preparation  for  war:  All  large  ques- 
tions of  naval  policy  and  maritime  warfare — 
to    advise.     2.  Fighting    and    seagoing    ef- 
ficiency of  the  fleet,  its  organization  and  mo- 
bilization, including  complements  of  ships  as 
affecting  total  numbers,  system  of  gunnery 
and  torpedo  exercises  of  the  fleet,  and  tactical 
employment   of   air-craft,   and  all   military 
questions  connected  with  the  foregoing;  dis- 
tribution and  movements  of  all  ships  in  com- 
mission and  in  reserve.    3.  Superintendence 
of  the  War  Staff  and  the  Hydrographic  De- 
partment,'* 


[174] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVZ 

How  Money  Appbopbiated  foe  the  Navy  is 
Wasted 

George  von  Lengerke  Meyer,  former  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  has  many  times  in  recent  years  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
money  appropriated  for  the  upbuilding  and  up- 
keep of  our  Navy  has  been  misapplied  to  the  build- 
ing and  up-keep  of  useless  navy  yards. 
\  During  the  first  fifteen  years  of  the  present  cen- 
tury, we  spent  $1,656,000,000  on  our  Navy,  while 
during  the  same  period  Germany  spent  $1,137,- 
000,000. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  during  this  i)eriod 
Germany  spent  31  per  cent,  less  money  on  her 
navy  than  we  did  on  ours,  she  has  a  more  power- 
ful navy  than  we  have.  This  difference  represents 
a  sum  of  more  than  half  a  billion  of  dollars.  With 
that  amount  of  money  we  could  have  built  two 
super-dreadnoughts  a  year,  for  the  past  fifteen 
years,  costing  $15,000,000  each,  with  $60,000,000 
to  spare  for  battle-cruisers,  destroyers,  and 
submarines.  In  short,  had  we  spent  our  naval 
appropriations  as  economically  as  have  the  Ger- 
mans during  the  past  fifteen  years,  we  might 
have  had  thirty  more  battleships  than  we  now 
have,  all  super-dreadnoughts  of  the  Queen  Eliza- 
beth type,  the  latest  and  most  powerful  pattern. 
This  number  of  up-to-date  super-dreadnoughts 
would  have  far  more  than  doubled  the  battle 

[175] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

strength  of  our  Navy.  We  should  have  out- 
classed England  in  battleship  strength. 

The  following  facts  are  so  pregnant  and  so  im- 
portant and  so  ably  expressed  that  I  can  do  no 
better  than  to  give  them  in  Mr.  Meyer's  own 
words : 

■^  **  Until  within  a  few  years  no  naval  appropria- 
tion could  pass  the  Senate  which  did  not  meet  the 
sanction  of  both  a  Northern  and  Southern  Sen- 
ator, each  of  whom  was  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Naval  Affairs.  It  is  interesting,  in  con- 
sequence, to  analyze  some  of  the  appropriations 
between  1895  and  1910. 

J*' In  1899  a  site  was  purchased  in  Frenchman's 
Bay,  Maine,  at  a  cost  of  $24,650 — far  above  the 
assessed  valuation — and  later  an  additional 
amount  of  $600,000  was  expended  to  obtain  there 
an  absolutely  unnecessary  coaling-station,  which 
has  since  been  dismantled,  as  it  was  practically 
unused. 

''At  the  Portsmouth  Navy  Yard,  so  called,  in 
Kittery,  Maine,  a  dock  was  built  at  an  expense  of 
$1,122,800,  and  later  it  was  found  necessary  to 
blast  away  rock  in  the  channel  in  order  to  reach 
the  dock,  at  an  additional  expense  of  $745,300. 

"Between  1895  and  1910  improvements,  ma- 
chinery, repairs,  and  maintenance  in  the  yard 
amounted  to  $10,857,693,  although  there  was  a 
large  navy-yard  within  seventy  miles. 

[176] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVY 

"On  the  other  hand,  at  Port  Royal,  South  Caro- 
lina, a  dock  was  built  at  the  insistence  of  the 
Southern  Senator,  at  a  cost  of  $450,000,  which 
proved  useless,  and,  although  the  original  cost  of 
the  site  was  hut  $5,000,  it  was  not  abandoned  as 
a  naval  base  until  $2,275,000  had  been  expended. 

"Not  the  least  daunted  by  this  extravagant 
ivaste,  the  same  Senator  determined  to  have  a 
share  of  the  naval  melon  for  his  State,  so,  with 
the  assistance  of  the  Northern  Senator,  he  ob- 
tained the  establishment  of  another  naval  station 
at  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  in  1001.  There 
was  no  strategic  value  thus  accomplished,  nor 
was  it  necessary,  with  the  Norfolk  Navy-Yard  lo- 
cated at  Hampton  Roads.  The  $5,000,000  which 
has  been  squandered  at  Charleston  includes  a  dry- 
dock  built  for  battleships,  costing  $1,250,000,  but 
which  experience  shows  can  only  be  used  by  tor- 
pedo-boat destroyers  and  gunboats.  The  $5,000,- 
000  could  have  been  employed  to  great  advantage 
at  the  Norfolk  Navy-Yard,  where  the  battleship 
fleet  generally  assembles.  A  portion  even  could 
have  been  used  wisely  at  Key  West,  Florida,  a 
supplementary  base  of  real  strategic  value  for 
torpedoes  and  submarines — a  protection  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi 
River,  and  on  account  of  its  geographical  situa- 
tion. Key  West  would  serve  as  a  base  of  supplies 
to  the  fleet  in  the  Caribbean  Sea. 

*'  The  purpose  of  the  navy -yards  is  to  keep  the 
[177] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

fleet  in  efficient  condition.  Their  location  should 
he  determined  hy  strategic  conditions,  their  num- 
ber by  the  actual  needs  of  the  fleet.  The  main- 
tenance of  navy-yards  which  do  not  contribute  to 
battle  efficiency  is  a  great  source  of  luaste. 

''The  United  States  has  over  twice  as  many 
first-class  navy-yards  as  Great  Britain,  with  a 
navy  more  than  double  the  size  of  ours,  and  more 
than  three  times  as  many  as  Germany,  whose  navy 
is  larger  than  that  of  the  United  States. 

"The  total  cost  of  navy-yards  up  to  June  30th, 
1910,  with  land,  public  works,  improvements,  ma- 
chinery, and  maintenance,  including  repairs, 
amounts  to  $320,600,000. 

^"Overburdened  with  a  superfluous  number  of 
navy-yards  distributed  along  the  Atlantic  coast 
from  Maine  to  Louisiana,  in  1910  I  recommended 
that  Congress  give  up  and  dispose  of  naval  sta- 
tions at  New  Orleans,  Pensacola,  San  Juan,  Port 
Royal,  Neiv  London,  Sackett's  Harbor  (New 
York),  Culebra,  and  Cavite,  none  of  which  was  a 
first-class  station.  The  average  yearly  cost  of 
maintaining  these  stations  between  1905  and  1910 
was  $1,672,675,  and  very  little  useful  work  had 
been  performed  at  any  of  them.  Later,  I  prac- 
tically closed  them,  but  could  not  abolish  or  dis- 
pose of  them,  no  action  having  been  taken  by  Con- 
gress. Pensacola  and  New  Orleans  have  since 
been  reopened  by  my  successor. 

[178] 


TEE  NEEDS  OF  OUR  NAVZ 

"The  interests  of  the  country  and  the  interests 
of  the  Navy  would  be  best  served  by  one  first-class 
naval  base  with  sufficient  anchorage  for  the  entire 
fleet,  north  of  the  Delaware,  equipped  for  dock- 
ing, repairing,  etc.,  and  another  station  of  equal 
capacity  at  Norfolk,  in  Chesapeake  Bay,  with 
Guantanamo,  Cuba,  to  serve  as  the  winter-station 
rendezvous. 

''On  the  Pacific  coast  we  are  fortutpate  in  hav- 
ing only  tivo  naval  stations,  one  at  Bremerton,  on 
Puget  Sound,  established  in  1891,  with  ample 
depth  of  water,  costing  to  date  about  $9,000,000; 
and  the  other  at  Mare  Island,  established  in  1850, 
some  thirty  miles  from  the  harbor  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, with  inadequate  depth  and  width  of  water 
along  its  water-front.  The  total  costs,  with  main- 
tenance and  repairs,  have  amounted  to  $35,000,- 
000,  and,  on  account  of  insufficient  depth  of  water, 
none  of  the  battleships  built  in  the  last  eight  years 
could  have  been  berthed  there.  .  .  . 

{/'Building  battleships  without  an  adequate 
force  of  men  is  equal  to  wasting  money;  only  ten 
ships  of  the  first  line  and  eleven  of  the  second, 
according  to  the  Navy  Department,  can  be  placed 
in  full  commission  for  service,  due  to  a  shortage 
of  men  and  officers. 

"To  provide  a  proper  complement  for  all  ves- 
sels of  the  Navy  which  could  still  be  made  useful 
would  require  an  additional  force  of  18,556  men 
and  933  line  officers,  according  to  the  testimony 

[  179  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

of  Admiral  Badger  before  the  Naval  Committee, 
December  8, 1914. 

^  ''That  we  have  not  been  getting  'proper  return 
for  money  expended  in  the  Navy  is  not  known  to 
the  majority  of  our  people,  nor  is  it  realized  to 
what  extent  political  influences  have  misdirected 
the  appropriations  during  the  past  twenty-five 
years.  The  remedy  will  only  come  from  absolute 
publicity. 

''Let  a  special  committee  be  appointed  to  in- 
vestigate the  conditions  in  the  Navy. 

"Let  a  special  committee  of  military  experts 
from  the  Army  and  Navy  be  appointed  to  recom- 
mend what  naval  stations  shall  be  abolished  and 
sold  and  if  any  shall  be  established  to  take  their 
places. 

"Let  Congress  inaugurate  a  national  council  of 
defense  made  up  of  members  of  the  Cabinet, 
Senate,  and  House,  with  the  chiefs  of  staff  from 
the  Army  and  Navy,  that  more  efficient  co-opera- 
tion may  be  obtained  between  the  executive  and 
legislative  branches  of  the  Government  in  respect 
to  military  requirements. 

"Let  Congress  establish  a  general  staff  in  the 
Navy.'* 


[180] 


CHAPTER  Vn 
LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

IN  the  present  war,  the  big  guns,  both  on  land 
and  sea,  have  told  their  own  story,  and  they 
have  commanded  conviction  of  their  useful- 
ness in  proportion  to  the  loudness  of  their  voice. 

Following  the  introduction  of  armor-plate  by 
Ericsson's  Monitor  and  the  Merrimac,  armor- 
plate  was  answered  by  increasing  the  size  of  guns 
and  projectiles.  Brown  prismatic  powder  was  de- 
veloped to  slow  the  burning  and  lessen  the  initial 
pressure,  thereby  securing  a  better  maintenance 
of  pressure  behind  the  projectile  in  its  passage 
along  the  bore  of  the  gun. 

Guns  weighing  more  than  a  hundred  tons  were 
built  in  England  for  the  use  of  brown  prismatic 
powder,  but  it  was  found  that,  after  firing  a  few 
rounds,  the  guns  drooped  at  the  muzzle  under  the 
shock  of  discharge,  and  lost  their  accuracy. 

The  invention  and  development  of  smokeless 
gunpowder,  mainly  during  the  ten  years  between 
1887  and  1897,  resulted  in  radical  improvements  in 
guns  of  all  calibers. 

Only  about  44  per  cent,  of  the  products  of  com- 
bustion of  the  old  black  powder  and  the  brown 

[181] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

prismatic  powder  were  gaseous.  The  balance, 
about  56  per  cent.,  were  solid  matter,  and  pro- 
duced smoke.  It  will  be  seen,  at  a  glance,  that 
smokeless  powder,  whose  products  of  combustion 
are  entirely  gaseous,  possesses  enormous  ballistic 
advantages,  quite  independent  of  its  smokeless- 
ness.  Less  than  half  the  products  of  combustion 
of  the  old  smoke-producing  powders  being  gas- 
eous, much  energy  was  absorbed  from  the  gases, 
to  heat  and  vaporize  the  solid  products  constitut- 
ing the  smoke.  Additional  heat  was  consumed  by 
the  work  of  expelling  the  smoke  from  the  gun. 

The  products  of  combustion  of  smokeless 
powder  are  not  only  practically  all  gaseous,  but 
also  they  are  much  hotter  than  the  products  of 
combustion  of  the  old,  smoky,  black  powder. 
Owing  to  this  fact,  smokeless  powder  may  be  con- 
sidered about  four  times  as  powerful  as  the  old 
black  powder. 

When  a  projectile  is  thrown  from  a  gun,  al- 
though it  is  not  heated  appreciably,  yet  heat-energy 
represented  by  its  velocity  is  absorbed  from  the 
expanding  gases  of  the  powder  charge.  When  a 
12-inch  projectile  weighing  a  thousand  pounds  is 
thrown  from  one  of  our  long  naval  guns,  it  has 
a  striking  energy,  fifty  feet  from  the  muzzle,  of 
about  50,000  foot-tons — that  is  to  say,  it  strikes 
with  a  force  equal  to  that  of  50,000  tons  falling 
from  a  height  of  one  foot,  or  one  ton  falling  from 
a  height  of  50,000  feet.    As  the  12-inch  naval  gun 

[  182  ] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

weighs  about  50  tons,  the  energy  absorbed  from 
the  gases  in  the  shape  of  velocity  of  the  projectile 
is  sufficient  to  lift  a  thousand  12-inch  guns  to  a 
height  of  one  foot. 

As  a  projectile  weighs  half  a  ton,  the  force  of  the 
blow  is  about  the  same  as  though  the  projectile 
were  to  be  dropped  from  a  height  of  twenty  miles, 
with  no  deduction  for  the  resistance  of  the  atmos- 
phere. 

When  the  projectile  is  stopped,  a  quantity  of  heat 
is  re-developed  exactly  equal  to  that  absorbed  from 
the  powder  gases  in  giving  the  projectile  its  high 
velocity;  and  .the  quantity  of  heat  absorbed  from 
the  powder  gases  in  throwing  a  thousand-pound 
projectile  from  our  big  naval  guns  is  sufficient  to 
melt  750  pounds  of  cast  iron,  which  is  enough  to 
heat  the  projectile  white  hot. 

Obviously,  when  the  projectile  strikes  armor- 
plate,  either  the  plate  or  the  projectile  must  yield, 
for  the  reason  that  the  projectile  brings  to  bear 
upon  a  12-inch  plate  an  energy  sufficient  to  fuse  a 
hole  right  through  it,  and  this  is  substantially 
what  it  does.  The  hard  and  toughened  steel  of  the 
plate  is  heated  and  softened  by  the  force  of  im- 
pact, and,  although  the  projectile  may  be  cold  after 
it  has  passed  through,  it  actually  does  fuse  a 
hole  through  the  plate,  the  metal  flowing  like  wax 
from  its  path. 

The  introduction  of  smokeless  cannon-powder 
was  followed  by  a  recession  from  guns  of  great 

[183] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

weight  and  caliber,  to  guns  of  smaller  weight  and 
smaller  caliber,  the  aim  being  to  make  up  for  the 
greater  smashing  power  of  huge  projectiles, 
thrown  at  a  lower  velocity,  with  projectiles  of 
smaller  size,  thrown  at  much  greater  velocity  and 
having  a  greater  power  of  penetration  of  armor- 
plate,  which  was  constantly  being  made  thicker 
and  tougher  and  harder  in  order  to  resist  the  im- 
pact of  armor-piercing  projectiles. 

As  armor-plate  continued  to  increase  in  thick- 
ness and  in  powers  of  resistance,  guns  of  bigger 
and  bigger  caliber  had  to  be  made,  capable  of  with- 
standing the  enormous  pressure  necessary  to 
throw  projectiles  of  sufficient  size  and  at  suffi- 
ciently high  velocity  to  penetrate  any  armor-plate 
that  could  be  opposed  to  them. 

With  every  improvement  in  armor-plate,  the 
gun  and  the  projectile  have  been  improved  and 
enlarged,  until  now  no  armor-plate  carried  by  any 
ship  can  withstand  the  naval  guns  of  largest  cali- 
ber. In  its  race  with  armor-plate,  the  gun  has 
thus  far  been  the  winner. 

The  victory  of  the  Monitor  over  the  Merrimac 
at  Hampton  Eoads,  half  a  century  ago,  was  far 
less  decisive  than  was  the  victory  of  armor-plate 
over  the  gun  of  that  time. 

The  whole  world  well  remembers  the  story  of 
ht)w  the  Monitor  arrived  in  the  nick  of  time,  and 
saved  the  Federal  fleet  from  destruction.  But  the 
salvation  of  the  Northern  fleet  was  of  little  ad- 

[184] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

vantage,  for  the  advent  of  the  Monitor  rendered 
obsolete  and  useless  every  warship  of  every  fleet 
in  the  world. 

Great  Britain  found  herself  without  a  navy. 
There  was  universal  consternation.  It  was  a 
world-wonder  that  no  government  had  before  re- 
sorted to  so  simple  an  expedient,  and  one  whose 
utility  was  so  very  evident. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  guns  of  that 
period  were  muzzle-loading  smooth-bores,  and 
that  the  round,  solid  projectiles  thrown  by  them 
were  intended  merely  to  knock  holes  in  the  sides 
of  wooden  warships  and  to  pound  down  the  walls 
of  brick  or  stone  forts.  Bombshells  were  then 
thin,  hollow  spheres  of  cast  iron,  charged  with 
black  gunpowder,  and  they  were  not  intended  for 
penetration,  their  destructiveness  depending  upon 
the  fragments  hurled  by  their  explosion,  or  upon 
their  ignition  of  inflammable  material. 

It  is  a  curious  phase  of  human  progress  that 
what  is  old  and  tried  is  venerated  and  conserved 
with  solicitous  regard  out  of  all  proportion  to 
merit.  Innovations  must  not  only  have  evident 
merit,  but  their  merit  must  also  be  so  indubitably 
proven  by  application  and  use  as  to  replace  the 
old  and  revered,  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  over- 
zealous  conservatism.  The  substitution  of  the  sail 
for  the  galley-slave  was  a  very  slow  process,  un- 
til it  received  especial  stimulus  in  the  fierce  forays 
of  the  marauding  Northmen  and  the  raids  of  the 

[185] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

Mediterranean  corsairs.  Similarly,  did  the  sail 
slowly  give  way  to  steam. 

A  modern  wooden  steam-launch  or  a  forty-foot 
motor-boat,  with  cedar  sides,  driven  by  gasolene- 
engines  and  armed  with  a  single  three-and-a- 
half-inch  gun,  would  be  able  today  to  attack  and 
destroy  the  famous  Monitor  of  Ericsson,  in  spite 
of  its  armor-plate,  for  the  reason  that  the  launch 
or  motor-boat  would  have  vastly  greater  speed, 
and  also  for  the  reason  that  its  gun  would  have 
vastly  greater  range,  and  would  be  able  to  pene- 
trate the  soft  iron  armor  of  the  Monitor  with  pro- 
jectiles charged  with  a  high  explosive  to  explode 
inside.  The  motor-boat,  lying  outside  the  range  of 
the  huge  11-inch  guns  of  the  Monitor,  could  hold 
a  position  of  perfect  safety  during  the  conflict, 
and,  by  consequence,  would  need  no  armored  pro- 
tection. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  sufficiency  of  armor-plate 
must,  other  things  being  equal,  inevitably  depend 
upon  insufficiency  in  range  and  penetrating  power 
of  the  gun  to  which  it  is  opposed.  An  unarmored 
vessel,  with  guns  capable  of  penetrating  the 
armor-plate  of  an  opponent  having  shorter-range 
guns,  needs  only  to  have  superior  speed  in  order 
to  choose  a  position  out  of  range  of  the  armor- 
clad 's  guns,  and,  atmospheric  conditions  being 
favorable,  to  destroy  it  without  itself  being  ex- 
posed to  any  danger  whatsoever. 

But  there  are  other  conditions  which  prevent  the 
[186] 


LANGUAGE  OF  TEE  BIG  GUNS 

gun,  however  long  its  range  and  however  great 
its  power  of  penetration,  from  being  a  complete 
defense  in  the  absence  of  armored  protection. 
These  conditions  are — the  limit  of  vision  due  to 
the  rotundity  of  the  earth,  even  in  clear  weather, 
the  limitation  of  vision,  at  much  nearer  distances, 
in  thick  or  hazy  weather,  and,  of  course,  the 
greatly  increased  difficulty  of  hitting  at  extreme 
ranges.  Also,  it  is  necessary  to  be  able  to  observe, 
from  the  fighting-tops,  where  trial  shots  strike,  in 
order  to  get  the  correct  range,  and  lay  the  guns 
exactly  upon  the  target. 

In  the  recent  North  Sea  fight,  firing  began  at 
more  than  17,000  yards,  or  about  ten  miles ;  12-inch 
and  13-inch  shells  from  the  British  ships  struck 
the  Bluecher  before  more  than  the  upper  works  of 
the  Bluecher  could  be  seen  from  the  decks  of  the 
British  ships.  Only  by  the  fire-control  officers,  a 
hundred  feet  above  the  decks,  could  her  whole  hull 
be  seen.  When  the  first  huge  shells  came  plunging 
down  out  of  the  sky  upon  the  Bluecher,  her  gun- 
ners could  not  see  the  ships  from  which  they  came. 

It  is  true  that  with  much  more  powerful  guns 
than  those  of  her  enemy,  an  unarmored  vessel 
would  be  able  to  shoot  right  through  any  armored 
protection  opposed  to  them.  But  there  is  the 
danger  that  an  armored  ship  of  an  enemy  may 
emerge  from  the  fog  or  haze,  or  from  out  of  the 
darkness  at  night,  and  then  neither  speed  nor 
weight  of  gun-fire  might  save  the  unarmored  ship. 

[187] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

The  nnarmored  vessel  would  not  be  able  with  her 
small  gnns,  if  she  carried  them,  materially  to  in- 
jure her  armored  enemy,  whereas  the  enemy,  with 
its  secondary  batteries,  firing  with  enormous  ra- 
pidity and  faster  than  the  speed  of  the  heavier 
guns,  would  be  able  to  riddle  her  in  a  few  mo- 
ments. Consequently,  it  is  considered  wise  to  em- 
ploy sufficient  armor  to  afford  protection  against 
the  rapid-fire  guns  of  smaller  caliber.  Such 
armor  also  at  longer  ranges  affords  considerable 
protection  against  the  big  guns,  for  it  must  be 
expected  that  not  all  projectiles  will  strike  the 
plate  at  right  angles.  They  strike  at  all  angles, 
and  sometimes  at  very  sharp  angles,  and  glance 
off,  in  which  case  armor  of  moderate  thickness 
may  save  a  ship  by  diverting  the  shots,  while,  if 
she  were  wholly  unarmored,  she  might  be  de- 
stroyed. 

We  may  then  conclude  that  an  ideal  fighting 
ship  would  be  one  having  very  great  speed,  carry- 
ing very  large  and  powerful  guns,  and  protected 
by  armor-plate  of  but  moderate  thickness.  Actu- 
ally, such  a  ship  is  the  modern  battle-cruiser.  We 
have  as  yet  not  one  of  these  ships  in  our  Navy, 
while  the  Japanese  have  two  of  the  most  powerful 
in  the  world,  and  more  building;  England  has 
eight,  and  more  building ;  Germany  has  four,  and 
more  building. 

The  first  improvements  following  the  advent  of 
armor-plate  were  made,  as  might  be  supposed,  in 

[188] 


Bow  the  Fleet  of  an  Erurmy  unth  fifteen-inch  gunt  eould  Bombard  and  Dettroy  FortB 
Hancock,  Hamilton  and  Wadsxcorth  and  also  all  of  Brooklyn  and  part  of  ilanhattan, 
from  a  position  beyond  the  range  of  the  Guns  of  those  Forts;  also  sliowing  hom.  after  Fort 
Hancock  is  destroyed,  the  Fleet  could  move  yet  nearer  for  the  Destruction  of  Forts  Hamil- 
tion  and  Wadsiaorth,  and  still  be  out  of  range  of  those  Forts,  and  finally,  after  their  D» 
ttructian,  how  it  could  Bombard  Sea  York,  Jersey  City  and  BrooMyn  at  Short  Sange. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

the  gnn  and  in  the  projectile.  The  old  smooth- 
bore, with  spherical  projectile,  was  replaced  by 
the  breech-loading  rifle  and  the  conical  projectile 
having  a  copper  driving  ring  and  gas-check,  by 
which  a  projectile  possessing  enormously  greater 
mass  for  its  caliber  could  be  hurled  at  much  higher 
velocity  and  kept  point  on. 

Extraordinary  improvements  have  been  con- 
tinuously made  in  armor-plate,  to  harden  and 
toughen  it  and  to  give  it  greater  powers  of  re- 
sistance, while  battleships  have  been  made  larger 
and  larger  to  support  heavier  and  hea%'ier  armor- 
plate.  Nevertheless,  the  first  improvement  in  guns 
and  projectiles  that  followed  the  advent  of  the 
armor-clad,  gave  the  gun  the  lead,  and  the  gun  has 
kept  the  lead  ever  since. 

Today,  the  long-range,  high-power  naval  gun, 
charged  with  smokeless  powder,  and  throwing  a 
projectile  made  of  tempered  steel  inconceivably 
tough  and  hard,  and  charged  with  high  explosive, 
is  the  most  powerful  dynamic  instrument  ever  pro- 
duced by  man.  A  12-inch  naval  gun  throws  a  pro- 
jectile weighing  half  a  ton,  at  a  velocity  nearly 
three  times  the  speed  of  sound.  A  charge  of  three 
hundred  and  seventy-five  pounds  of  smokeless 
powder,  strong  as  dynamite,  is  employed  for  the 
projectile  *s  propulsion. 

It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  at  fighting  ranges 
the  residual  velocity  of  a  12-inch,  armor-piercing, 
half-ton  projectile,  thrown  from  one  of  the  most 

[189] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

powerful  12-iiich  naval  guns,  develops  heat  enough 
upon  impact  to  fuse  its  way  through  12-inch  plate. 

When  a  solid  body  comes  into  collision  with 
another  solid  body,  the  energy  of  motion  is  in- 
stantly converted  into  heat,  except  such  portion 
of  it  as  may  be  consumed  in  fragmentation,  and 
retained  in  the  motion  of  the  flying  pieces.  If  two 
armor-plates,  twelve  inches  in  thickness,  could  be 
brought  together  face  to  face,  each  with  a  velocity 
equal  to  that  of  a  modern  12-inch  projectile,  the 
energy  of  the  impact  would  be  sufficient  to  melt 
both  plates. 

New  suns  are  created  by  the  occasional  col- 
lision of  great  celestial  bodies  in  their  flight 
through  space.  The  heat  generated  by  such  col- 
lisions is,  however,  vastly  greater  than  that  de- 
veloped by  the  collision  of  a  projectile  against 
armor-plate,  for  the  reason  that  the  velocity  of 
celestial  bodies  is  so  much  greater,  being  com- 
monly from  thirty-five  to  fifty  miles  per  second, 
and  sometimes  as  high  as  two  hundred  miles  per 
second,  instead  of  but  three-quarters  of  a  mile  per 
second.  The  heat  developed  by  the  collision  of 
worlds  is  sufficient  not  only  to  fuse  them,  but  also 
to  gasefy  them,  and  reduce  them  to  their  ultimate 
elements.  All  the  suns  that  emblazon  the  evening 
sky  have  been  created  in  this  manner,  and  the 
heat  generated  by  their  natal  impact  is  sufficient 
to  maintain  their  radiant  energy  for  hundreds  of 
millions  of  years.    Planets  are  born,  some  of  them 

[190] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

to  become  inhabited  worlds,  finally  to  grow  old  and 
die,  with  the  extinguishment  of  all  life  upon  them, 
while  their  parent  sun  is  still  blazing  hot. 

The  earth  is  being  constantly  bombarded  with 
meteorites,  usually  of  very  small  size.  But  the 
earth  is  armor-plated  with  its  envelope  of  air. 
The  impact  of  meteorites  upon  this  envelope,  at 
the  enormous  speed  at  which  they  are  traveling 
through  space,  is  fatal  to  them,  and  they  are 
dashed  to  pieces  and  consumed  upon  it,  as  though 
it  were  a  solid  shield  of  hardest  tempered  steel. 
It  is  seldom,  indeed,  that  a  meteorite  has  suffi- 
cient size  and  mass  to  penetrate  through  the  at- 
mosphere to  the  earth's  surface.  Were  it  not  for 
the  protection  offered  by  the  earth's  envelope  of 
air,  every  living  thing  upon  its  surface  would  be 
very  soon  destroyed  by  the  meteoric  bombardment 
from  the  heavens.  A  minute  particle  of  meteoric 
dust,  traveling  at  celestial  velocity,  would  be  more 
deadly  than  a  bullet  from  a  shoulder-rifle. 

When  a  projectile  is  fired  from  a  gun,  it  en- 
counters the  same  atmospheric  resistance,  in  pro- 
portion to  its  velocity  and  mass,  as  is  encountered 
by  a  meteorite,  the  resistance  increasing  in  a  ratio 
something  like  the  square  of  the  velocity.  When  a 
battleship  fires  a  12-inch  shot  at  another  war- 
vessel  ten  miles  away,  the  velocity  is  greatly  re- 
duced during  flight,  for  an  enormous  amount  of 
energy  is  consumed  in  punching  a  12-inch  hole  ten 
miles  long  through  the  atmosphere.    Gravitation, 

[191] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

also,  is  drawing  the  projectile  toward  the  earth 
with  a  constant  pull  of  half  a  ton,  to  counteract 
which  the  trajectory  must  be  made  an  upward 
curve.  This  makes  the  path  longer,  and  consumes 
additional  energy  in  raising  the  projectile  to  the 
top  of  the  trajectory. 

If  a  projectile  could  be  thrown  from  a  gun  at 
a  velocity  equal  to  that  of  a  meteor,  it  would  blaze 
like  the  sun  during  flight,  for  the  metal  upon  its 
surface  would  be  fused  and  gasefied  by  the  resist- 
ance and  friction  of  the  air.  It  would  not  make 
any  difference  whether  it  were  made  of  the  tough- 
est, hardest  tempered  steel,  or  whether  it  were 
made  of  soft  iron.  The  velocity  would  be  so  great 
that  it  would  pass  through  the  heaviest  armor- 
plate  without  appreciable  reduction  of  speed.  If 
the  projectile  were  of  lead,  it  would  require  armor- 
plate  of  a  greater  thickness  to  stop  it  than  if  it 
were  of  steel,  for  the  reason  that  its  mass  or 
weight  for  its  bulk  would  be  greater. 

Distance  and  the  intervening  air  are  our  most 
efficient  protection.  No  armored  defense  now  em- 
ployed is  wholly  effectual,  except  the  range  be 
long.  By  consequence,  then,  future  naval  battles 
will  be  decided  more  and  more  by  speed  and  size 
of  guns,  rather  than  by  armored  protection. 

Were  two  modern  dreadnoughts  to  battle  at  as 
close  range  as  did  the  Monitor  and  the  Merrimac, 
immediate  destruction  would  be  mutual.  They 
would  cripple  each  other  more  in  four  minutes 

[192] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

than  did  the  Monitor  and  the  Merrimac  in  the  four 
long  hours  during  which  they  pounded  each  other. 

The  Alabama  and  Kearsarge  fought  for  more 
than  an  hour,  within  bowshot  of  each  other,  before 
the  Alabama  was  destroyed.  Were  two  of  the  big- 
gest and  most  heavily  armored  battleships  in  the 
world  to  fight  today  at  as  close  range,  one  or  the 
other  of  them  would  be  destroyed  in  a  very  few 
minutes. 

The  projectiles  fired  from  the  monster  naval 
guns  now  weigh  many  times  as  much  as  those 
thrown  from  the  guns  of  either  the  Monitor  or  the 
Merrimac,  and  these  huge  projectiles  have  also  a 
multiplied  velocity.  The  total  thickness  of  the 
armor  of  the  Monitor's  turret  was  ten  inches.  An 
iron  wall  of  the  character  used  in  Ericsson's  tur- 
ret, five  feet  in  thickness,  would  not  afford  ade- 
quate protection  against  our  modern,  monster 
guns. 

Of  course,  the  character  of  armor-plate  has  been 
vastly  improved  since  that  time.  Instead  of  being 
merely  soft  iron,  as  was  that  of  the  Monitor, 
armor-plate  is  now  made  of  the  hardest  and  tough- 
est tempered  steel  that  science  can  produce.  So, 
also,  is  the  projectile.  The  projectile  has  far  more 
than  held  its  own.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that 
the  most  heavily  armored  ships,  as  well  as  those 
unarmored,  must  fight  today  at  long  range,  de- 
pending mainly  upon  skilled  marksmanship  and 
power   and   range    of  guns,   rather   than   upon. 

[193] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

armored  protection.  A  battle  at  close  range  be- 
tween two  huge  modern  dreadnoughts  would  be  as 
deadly  to  both  combatants  as  a  duel  between  two 
men  standing  close  together,  face  to  face,  holding 
pistols  at  each  other's  breast. 

When  a  chemical  engineer  makes  an  invention, 
and  needs  money  for  its  exploitation,  he  first  in- 
terests capitalists  by  letting  them  see  the  inven- 
tion practised  on  a  laboratory  scale,  embodying 
essentially  the  same  conditions  as  would  be  in- 
volved in  the  larger  commercial  application. 
Similarly,  we  may  get  a  very  just  and  depend- 
able idea  of  the  relative  efficiency  of  guns  and 
armor-plate  on  a  naval-battle  scale,  by  taking  into 
consideration  what  would  be  the  result  of  a  lesser 
conflict,  embodying  essentially  the  same  condi- 
tions. 

Suppose  two  men  were  to  fight  a  duel,  one  wear- 
ing armor  capable  of  protecting  him  as  efficiently 
against  rifle  balls  as  the  heaviest  armor  carried 
by  any  warship  today  is  capable  of  protecting  it 
against  modern  cannon-fire ;  the  other  wearing  no 
armor,  and  being  thereby  enabled  to  run  much 
faster  than  his  armor-clad  opponent.  Obviously, 
if  the  unarmored  man  had  a  gun  of  longer  range 
than  that  carried  by  the  protected  man,  he  would 
be  able  to  keep  out  of  range  of  his  enemy's  gun, 
while  still  keeping  him  well  within  range.  Thus  he 
would  be  able  to  continue  firing  at  him  until  he 
killed  him,  without  in  return  being  hit  at  all. 

[194] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

At  the  battle  of  Santiago,  the  American  fleet 
made  only  about  two  per  cent,  of  hits  with  its  12- 
inch  guns.  Since  that  time  very  great  improve- 
ments have  been  made  in  fire-control,  and  the 
accuracy  of  gun-fire.  Today,  a  battle-cruiser,  go- 
ing at  the  rate  of  thirty  knots,  will  hit  an  object 
on  the  sky-line  a  tenth  the  size  of  a  battleship 
with  the  accuracy  that  Buffalo  Bill  from  horse- 
back would  hit  a  man 's  hat  at  a  distance  of  twenty 
paces. 

In  the  naval  battle  between  von  Spec  and  Crad- 
ock,  off  the  coast  of  Chili,  they  opened  fire  on 
each  other  with  deadly  effect  at  12,000  yards.  In 
the  running  fight  off  the  Falkland  Islands,  most  of 
the  execution  was  done  at  a  range  of  15,000  yards. 

In  the  North  Sea  fight,  according  to  the  report 
of  Admiral  Beatty,  the  British  shots  began  to  take 
effect  on  the  enemy  at  ten  miles,  and  the  whole 
battle  was  fought  at  a  range  of  over  seven  miles. 
The  German  guns,  being  mounted  so  that  they 
could  be  elevated  much  more  than  the  British, 
were  able  to  shoot  not  only  as  far,  but  even  far- 
ther. The  British  guns,  however,  were  much  more 
effective,  because  of  the  greater  weight  of  metal 
thrown. 

When  projectiles  are  increased  in  size  the  at- 
mospheric resistance  at  equal  velocity  increases  as 
the  square  of  the  diameter,  while  the  mass  in- 
creases as  the  cube  of  the  diameter.  Consequently, 
large  projectiles  lose  less  velocity  during  flight,  in 

[195] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

proportion  to  their  weight,  due  to  the  resistance 
of  the  air,  than  do  smaller  projectiles. 

Only  within  the  last  few  years  has  rapid-fire 
with  very  large  guns  become  possible.  Now,  how- 
ever, loading  machinery  has  been  so  perfected 
that  the  limit  is  no  longer  that  of  hand-power. 
Wherever  in  nature  forces  are  opposed,  there  is  a 
tendency  toward  an  equilibrium.  There  is  now  a 
tendency  toward  the  establishment  of  an  equilib- 
rium between  the  power  of  offense  and  the  power 
of  defense — between  gun-fire  and  armor-plate. 

Nevertheless,  the  mean  force  of  gun-fire  remains 
still  far  superior  to  that  of  armored  resistance. 
-^  The  mean  armored  resistance  is  now  about  on  a 
par  with  that  of  the  moderate  caliber  guns,  as,  for 
example,  6-  and  8-inch  guns.  If  there  were  no 
larger  guns  than  those  of  6-  and  8-inch  caliber, 
guns  and  armor-plate  would  be  about  neck  and 
neck  in  the  race.  Consequently,  we  must  look  to 
the  winning  of  naval  victories  by  the  employment 
of  guns  of  more  than  8-inch  caliber. 

Speed  is  of  such  supreme  importance  in  naval 
engagements  that  its  value  should  be  especially 
emphasized.  Superior  speed  enables  the  fleet  pos- 
sessing it  to  choose  its  own  position,  thus  deter- 
mining the  range  and  the  direction  from  which 
the  attack  shall  be  made.  If  the  fleet  happens  to 
have  guns  of  larger  caliber  and  longer  range  than 
the  enemy,  it  may  be  important,  also,  to  choose 
its  weather  by  keeping  out  of  action  until  it  can 

[196] 


Fr^.  i.—J  ao  fl(c:s,  i  atid  S,  go  into  aif.on  ir,  fsraiUl  iir.ts,  the  range  being  chaiea  by  the 
'at,  F,  hjiing  ski^s  of  greatest  ipeed  aiiJ  --jks  if  htigest  range. 


Fig.  2.— The  faster  fieet,  F,  forges  ahead,  concentrating  the  fre  of  both  its  front  skips  ot)  the 
tan  ship  of  the  slota  feet,  vhi/e  Ike  rear  skip  of  fieit  S  is  throv:n  cut  of  rang--  ar.d 

Ci'.'  of  ccion. 

,  _  , ■,■!■■  I  ■     II  ■■    I  !■         ■■      I     "    ■  ■  '     1 

..^;;:--  i 

I 
) 


Fig.  i, —  The  faster  fieet,  F,  bends  its  course  in  front  of  the  slorvrr  fiect,  S,  with  increased 
nr.ceniraiion  offirt  ea  the  leading  ships  of  the  latter,  throtjing  its  two  rear  skip) 
tif  if  a(tm,, 


•'wrsrrtsrrrT 


.«J«;  4,»Ji 


j:..*A^^>i 


<23>- 


cs:^' 


X. 


^'(f-  /. —  Tht  faster  fltet,  F,  doublts  around  and  crumples  she  slotcerJteei,S,  and poars  into 
its  foremost  ships  an  everakelming  eiiflading  firt,  tahilt  its  four  rear  skips  art 
thro'xn  out  of  action. 


^ 

J    '  ■  ■ 

/    - 

v^ 

■-:% 

'  "■''  ,^ 

f 

-', 

r 

Fig-  S. — The  slower  fleet,  S,  is  forced  imo  a  circular  position  and  destroy  cd,  while  ittfttf 
ships  are  const  ami j  ktff  wl  of  aciton. 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

fight  at  the  maximum  range  of  its  own  guns.  The 
slow  fleet  must  always  fight  at  a  disadvantage. 

Let  us  picture  two  opposing  fleets  drawn  up  for 
battle.  The  fleet  with  fastest  ships  and  guns  of 
longest  range,  lining  up  at  the  maximum  effective 
distance  for  its  fire,  steams  at  first  in  a  line  paral- 
lel with  the  enemy  and  in  the  same  direction  that 
the  enemy  is  steaming.  The  faster  fleet  is  soon 
able  to  run  its  van  ships  forward  of  the  van  ships 
of  the  enemy,  turning  in  front  of  them,  thereby 
bringing  the  front  ship  of  the  enemy's  line  under 
the  combined  fire  of  its  own  two  foremost  ships, 
while  the  rearmost  ship  in  its  line  of  battle  gets 
out  of  range  of  the  rearmost  ship  of  the  enemy, 
placing  the  latter  entirely  out  of  action.  This 
movement  is  continued  until  the  enemy's  line  is 
encircled,  crumpled  up,  and  destroyed.  There- 
fore, we  see  that  superior  speed  enables  the  fleet 
possessing  it  to  put  a  portion  of  an  enemy's  fleet 
entirely  out  of  action,  while  at  the  same  time  plac- 
ing the  remainder  of  the  enemy's  ships  under  the 
combined  fire  of  a  superior  number. 

In  June,  1897,  I  delivered  a  lecture  before  the 
Eoyal  United  Service  Institution  of  Great  Britain, 
in  which  I  illustrated  and  recommended  the  em- 
ployment of  a  gun  of  very  large  caliber  for  use 
on  fighting  ships  and  in  coast  fortifications. 

The  United  States  government  had,  several 
years  previously,  adopted  the  multi-perforated 
smokeless  cannon-powder  invented  by  me.    This 

[197] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

form  of  grain  rendered  it  possible  to  use  a  pure 
nitro-cellulose  smokeless  powder  in  large  guns, 
because  it  greatly  reduced  the  initial  area  of  com- 
bustion in  proportion  to  the  mass,  while  as  the 
combustion  progressed  this  condition  was  re- 
versed and  a  very  large  area  was  presented  to  the 
flame  of  combustion  in  proportion  to  the  mass. 
Consequently,  the  initial  pressure  in  the  gun  was 
much  reduced,  while  greater  pressure  was  main- 
tained behind  the  projectile  in  its  flight  through 
the  gun  than  could  be  obtained  by  any  other  form 
of  grain.  This  made  possible  the  attainment  of 
a  very  high  velocity,  with  a  comparatively  low 
initial  pressure  and,  consequently,  with  com- 
paratively small  strain  upon  the  gun.  For  this 
reason,  and  because  of  the  low  heat  in  the  combus- 
tion of  pure  nitro-cellulose  powder,  the  erosive 
action  upon  the  gun  was  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

I  invented  another  and  a  special  form  of  multi- 
perforated  grain  by  means  of  which  a  yet- lower 
initial  pressure  for  a  given  density  of  loading 
was  secured,  the  rate  of  combustion  being  still 
more  highly  accelerated. 

Believing  that  the  advantages  of  projectiles  of 
great  size,  carrying  a  very  large  bursting  charge, 
could  be  better  illustrated  by  a  gun  of  extraordi- 
nary caliber,  I  designed  a  cannon  having  a  caliber 
of  twenty-four  inches,  but  having  a  weight  of  only 
43  tons,  the  weight  and  length  of  the  gun 
being  the   same  as   the   British  12-inch  43-ton 

[198] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

gun.  This  gun  was  designed  to  throw  a  semi- 
armor-piercing  projectile  weighing  1,700  pounds, 
and  carrying  an  explosive  charge  of  1,000  pounds, 
the  total  weight  of  the  projectile  being  2,700 
pounds.  While  the  projectile  was  not  designed 
to  pierce  heavy  armor,  it  was  capable  of  penetrat- 
ing the  decks  and  sides  of  light-armored  cruisers 
and  deep  into  earth  or  concrete  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  forts.  It  was  a  veritable  aerial  torpedo. 
By  means  of  the  special  form  of  multi-perforated 
smokeless  powder  designed  for  this  gun,  the 
huge  projectile  could  be  thrown  to  a  distance  of 
nine  miles  with  the  gun  at  maximum  elevation, 
and  still  with  a  comparatively  low  chamber  pres- 
sure. 

The  projectile  was  provided  with  a  safety  delay- 
action  detonating  fuse,  designed  to  explode  it 
after  having  penetrated  the  object  struck,  thereby 
securing  the  maximum  destructive  effects. 

It  is  reported  that  the  Germans  have  made  a 
huge  howitzer  weighing  45  tons,  having  a  caliber 
of  23^  inches,  which  also  is  capable  of  throwing  a 
projectile  weighing  more  than  a  ton  to  a  distance 
of  nine  miles. 

The  drawings  used  in  my  lecture  were  published 
in  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  United  Service  Insti- 
tution, April,  1898,  and  re-published  in  many  sci- 
entific and  engineering  magazines,  and  in  news- 
papers both  here  and  abroad.  The  descriptions 
of  this  gun  and  projectile  were  illustrated,  as  was 

[199] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

the  manner  of  its  employment  for  the  destruction 
of  the  kinds  of  forts  destroyed  by  the  Germans  at 
Liege  and  Namur. 

The  use  of  high  explosives  in  big  armor-piercing 
projectiles  is  now  universal,  but  on  the  publica- 
tion of  my  lecture  in  1897  I  was  subjected  to  much 
criticism,  especially  in  some  of  the  London  news- 
papers, whose  editors  took  issue  with  me  as  to  the 
practicability  of  throwing  large  bursting  charges 
of  high  explosives  from  high-power  guns.  Prior 
to  that  time  the  only  success  achieved  in  throwing 
large  charges  of  high  explosives  was  by  use  of 
the  Zalinski  pneumatic  dynamite  gun,  a  battery 
of  which  had  been  made  and  mounted  at  great  ex- 
pense at  Sandy  Hook.  These  air-guns  imparted 
a  maximum  velocity  of  only  about  600  feet  per 
second  to  the  projectile.  The  maximum  charge 
was  600  pounds  of  nitro-gelatin.  The  projectile 
had  no  penetrating  power  whatsoever,  and  was  de- 
signed to  go  off  on  impact. 

My  proposition  to  throw  large  charges  of  a 
high  explosive  from  a  big  gun,  at  high  velocity, 
using  a  propelling  charge  of  gunpowder,  ap- 
peared to  many  to  be  a  very  hare-brained  inten- 
tion indeed,  to  say  nothing  of  shooting  it  through 
armor  and  exploding  it  behind  the  plate. 

On  my  return  to  America  in  1898,  I  laid  the 
matter  before  General  A.  R.  Buflfington,  Chief  of* 
the  Bureau  of  Ordnance,  United  States  Army,  and 
Admiral  Charles  O'Neil,  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of 

[200] 


LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIG  GUNS 

Ordnance,  United  States  Navy.  General  Buffing- 
ton  sent  me  to  Sandy  Hook,  where  my  new  explo- 
sive, Maximite,  was  subjected  to  a  very  thorough 
trial.  The  first  12-inch  projectile  charged  with 
it  was  buried  in  sand  in  an  armor-cased  cellar, 
and  exploded.  More  than  seven  thousand  frag- 
ments of  the  projectile  were  recovered,  being 
sifted  out  of  the  sand.  Twelve-inch  projectiles 
charged  with  Maximite  were  repeatedly  fired 
through  12-inch  armor-plate  without  exploding. 
Later,  similar  projectiles,  armed  with  a  fuse,  were 
fired  through  the  same  plate  and  were  exploded 
behind  the  plate.  Although  Maximite  was  fifty 
per  cent,  stronger  than  ordinary  dynamite,  yet 
it  was  so  insensitive  to  shock  as  to  be  incapable 
of  being  exploded  without  the  use  of  a  very  strong 
detonator.  Maximite  was  the  first  high  explosive 
successfully  to  be  fired  through  heavy  armor- 
plate,  and  exploded  behind  the  plate,  with  a 
delay-action  fuse.  The  fuse  employed  at  that  time 
was  the  invention  of  an  army  officer.  Later,  my 
fuse  was  subjected  to  a  very  long  series  of 
tests,  and  it  was  finally  adopted  in  1907  as 
the  service  detonating  fuse  by  the  United  States 
Navy. 

If  Uncle  Sam  would  listen  with  an  understand- 
ing mind  to  the  language  of  the  big  guns  now 
speaking  on  land  and  sea,  he  would  immediately 
build  a  large  number  of  huge  howitzers.  He  would 
build  a  large  number  of  good  roads,  capable  of 

[201] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

standing  the  tread  of  these  howitzers.  He  would 
build  as  well  a  goodly  number  of  battle-cruisers, 
as  big  and  as  fast  as  any  afloat  in  foreign  seas, 
and  armed  with  guns  ranging  as  far  as  the  guns' of 
any  foreign  power. 


[202] 


CHAPTER  Vin 
AERIAL  WARFARE 

IN  the  present  European  War  is  being  tested 
the  enginery  of  destruction  and  slaughter 
that  has  been  building  and  accumulating  for 
half  a  century.  It  is  the  most  stupendous  experi- 
ment that  the  human  race  has  ever  tried.  The 
magnitude  of  it  confounds  the  senses ;  the  horror 
obsesses  the  mind  and  stumps  realization. 

The  influence  of  improvements  in  all  kinds  of 
weapons  and  machinery  of  war  is  further  and 
further  to  complicate  strategics.  The  more  that 
invention,  science,  and  discovery  are  employed 
in  the  development  and  perfection  of  implements 
of  war,  the  more  the  use  of  those  implements 
requires  high  inventive  genius  and  high  scientific 
skill. 

Before  the  outbreak  of  the  war  there  were 
many  military  engines  awaiting  a  practical  trial 
in  actual  service,  among  them  the  dirigible  bal- 
loon. During  a  period  of  forty  years  the  nations 
of  the  world  have  been  obliged  to  do  a  good  deal 
of  guessing,  in  spite  of  calculations  based  on 
previous  experience  in  wars  whose  mechanism 
was  very  simple  and  crude  as  compared  with  the 

[203] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

present  engines  of  war.  But  the  improvements 
in  weapons  employed  on  terra  firma  did  not  con- 
stitute so  far  a  step  away  from  experience  as 
engines  of  aerial  warfare.  Those  engines  of  war 
which  have  been  mainly  the  subjects  of  guess- 
work are  the  aeroplane  and  that  dreadnought  of 
the  air,  the  Zeppelin,  especially  the  latter.  The 
advent  of  the  aeroplane  introduced  an  entirely 
new  set  of  problems. 

Before  the  advent  of  the  aeroplane,  the  navi- 
gation of  the  air  was  conlSned  to  the  balloon. 
Contrary  to  expectation,  the  aeroplane,  instead 
of  putting  the  balloon  out  of  the  race,  served  only 
to  stimulate  higher  development  of  the  balloon, 
with  the  result  that  the  dirigible  balloon  and 
the  aeroplane  have  been  developed  side  by 
side. 

From  the  outset,  it  was  recognized  that  the 
chief  desideratum  in  the  development  of  the 
aeroplane  consisted  in  greater  stability,  and  es- 
pecially in  automatic  equilibration. 

The  first  aeroplanes  were  very  imperfect.  At 
the  time  of  the  early  exhibitions  which  I  wit- 
nessed, it  was  necessary  to  plan  them  to  take 
place  in  the  calm  of  the  evening,  just  before  sun- 
down. The  aeroplane  could  not  go  up  in  a  wind. 
No  aeronaut  would  have  undertaken  to  go  up 
except  when  there  was  no  wind.  Even  a  mod- 
erate breeze  made  them  quite  unmanageable. 
Now,  however,  the  aeroplane  can  rise  in  a  gale 

[  204  ] 


'AERIAL  WARFARE 

of  wind,  and  fly  right  into  the  teeth  of  a  hnr- 
ricane. 

The  old-style  balloon  could  only  go  with  the 
wind.  It  could  make  no  headway  against  it,  but 
had  to  float  like  a  feather  on  the  lightest  breeze. 
The  modern  dirigible,  however,  which  has  reached 
its  highest  degree  of  perfection  in  the  Zeppelin, 
can  travel  through  still  air  at  a  speed  of  sixty 
miles  an  hour,  the  speed  of  a  gale  of  wind,  and 
can  brave  a  fifty-mile  gale  at  a  speed  of  ten  miles 
an  hour.  This  is  altogether  remarkable  when  we 
take  into  account  the  fact  that  the  Zeppelin,  with 
all  its  load,  must  be  lighter  than  air,  and  there- 
fore, for  its  size,  lighter  than  the  fluffiest  eider- 
down. 

LlMrTATIONS  OF  THE  AeRIAL  BoMB 

Aviation  makes  a  strong  appeal  to  the  imag- 
ination, and  this  fact,  together  with  errors  and 
misconceptions  in  the  popular  mind  concerning 
the  use  and  power  of  high  explosives,  has  led  to 
many  strange  predictions  and  weird  conclusions 
about  the  destruction  which  dirigibles  and  aero- 
planes would  be  capable  of  doing  by  dropping 
bombs  from  the  sky. 

Since  the  advent  of  aviation,  many  inventors 
have  directed  their  energies  to  aerial  bombs  and 
bomb-dropping  appliances.  There  have  been, 
from  time  to  time,  fearful  forecasts  of  the  de- 

[205] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

stmction  of  warships,  coast  fortifications,  and 
large  cities;  for  it  was  claimed  that  air-craft 
would  be  able  to  drop  explosive  bombs  capable 
of  wrecking  the  heaviest  battleship  and  of  blow- 
ing up  coast  fortifications  and  utterly  laying 
waste  cities  and  towns.  It  was  predicted  that 
the  aeroplane  would  be  able,  with  its  bombs,  to 
scatter  armies  like  chaff  before  the  whirlwind. 

r^  The  hopes  of  those  who  have  believed  in  such 
dire  destructiveness  of  bomb-dropping  from  air- 
craft have  been  dashed  to  the  ground,  with  the 
bombs  they  have  dropped.  Of  course,  aviators 
may  drop  any  form  of  infernal  machine  which,  on 
exploding,  will  mangle  by-standers  with  frag- 
ments of  scrap  iron,  but  the  effect  must  neces- 

\    sarily  be  very  local. 

^  The  most  effective  use  aviators  can  make  of 
bombs  and  infernal  machines  is  to  destroy  one 
another  in  the  sky  and  to  attack  magazines  and 
storehouses,  wireless  stations,  hangars,  and  bal- 
loon-sheds within  the  enemy's  lines,  and  beyond 
the  reach  of  other  means  of  attack.  Also,  in  con- 
nection with  the  attack  of  advancing  troops,  aerial 
bombs  dropped  from  aeroplanes  may  be  used  with 
effect,  especially  in  disentrenching  an  enemy.  At 
sea,  too,  with  the  latest  types  of  aeroplane,  bombs 
of  sufficient  size  and  weight  and  power  of  pene- 
tration may  be  used  destructively  against  un- 
armored  or  light-armored  war-vessels.  A  more 
efficient    means,    however,    than    has    yet   been 

[206] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

adopted  is  needed  to  secure  the  required  accuracy. 
Naturally,  such  bombs  are  admirably  adapted  to 
the  destruction  of  dirigible  balloons.  The  swift- 
winged  aviator  is  able  to  manoeuvre  at  will  around 
and  above  a  huge  dirigible  and  to  attack  it  from 
any  quarter. 

There  is  probably  no  one  subject  about  which 
there  is  more  popular  error  than  concerning  the 
use  and  destructive  effects  of  high  explosives. 

An  anarchist  once  attempted  to  blow  up  Lon- 
don Bridge  with  two  small  sticks  of  dynamite, 
and  succeeded  merely  in  getting  himself  into 
trouble.  At  another  time,  a  dynamiter  entered 
the  Houses  of  Parliament  and  exploded  ten 
pounds  of  dynamite  in  one  of  the  large  corridors, 
with  the  result  that  it  only  made  a  hole  in  the 
floor  and  smashed  a  few  windows. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  airships  are  capable  of 
working  comparatively  small  damage  by  drop- 
ping bombs,  unless  the  bombs  can  be  made  to  hit 
and  penetrate  the  object  struck  before  exploding, 
for  the  reason  that,  unless  confined,  explosives 
have  but  little  effect. 

When  a  mass  of  high  explosive  is  detonated 
upon  a  firm,  resisting  body,  like  the  earth,  or  the 
deck  of  a  battleship,  or  armor-plate,  the  effect  is 
to  rebound  from  the  resisting  body  with  small 
result.  For  example,  when  a  mass  of  high  ex- 
plosive is  set  off  on  the  earth's  surface,  the  ball 
of  incandescent  gases  bounds  upward,  spreading 

[207] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

out  in  the  form  of  an  inverted  cone.  While  it 
will  blow  a  hole  of  considerable  size  into  the 
ground,  still  the  effect  in  a  horizontal  plane  is 
practically  nil.  The  windows  of  buildings  stand- 
ing in  the  vicinity  of  an  explosion  of  this  char- 
acter are  not  blown  inward,  but  are  blown  out- 
ward in  the  direction  of  the  explosion  by  atmos- 
pheric reaction. 

At  Sandy  Hook,  several  years  ago,  an  experi- 
ment was  tried  with  two  hundred  pounds  of  gun- 
cotton  exploded  against  a  twelve-inch  plate,  im- 
mediately back  of  which  were  placed  a  cage  con- 
taining a  rooster  and  a  hen,  and  another  cage 
containing  a  dog.  The  guncotton  was  hung 
against  the  plate  and  detonated.  The  effect  upon 
the  plate  was  nil.  On  examination,  it  was  found 
that  the  dog  and  the  two  fowl  had  been  made 
rather  hard  of  hearing.  That  was  the  only 
noticeable  effect  upon  the  animals. 

We  all  remember  the  test  of  the  big,  eighteen- 
inch  Gathmann  gun  at  Sandy  Hook  about  twelve 
years  ago,  which  threw  a  bomb  containing  six 
hundred  pounds  of  compressed  guncotton  that 
was  exploded  against  the  face  of  a  twelve-inch 
Kruppized  plate.  The  first  shot  produced  no  visi- 
ble effect  except  a  yellow  smudge  on  the  face  of 
the  plate.  It  took  three  shots  even  to  crack  the 
plate  and  to  shift  it  in  its  setting. 

In  competition  with  the  Gathmann  gun,  a 
twelve-inch  army  rifle  was  fired  against  another 

[208] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

plate  of  the  same  size  and  thickness  and  mounted 
in  the  same  manner.  The  projectile  contained 
only  twenty-three  pounds  of  Maximite.  Yet,  as 
the  projectile  penetrated  the  plate  before  the  Max- 
imite was  exploded,  a  hole  was  blown  through  it 
a  yard  wide,  and  it  was  broken  into  several  pieces. 

These  tests  proved  the  effectiveness  of  even  a 
small  quantity  of  high  explosive  when  properly 
confined,  as  by  explosion  after  penetration,  and 
the  utter  ineffectiveness  of  a  large  mass  of  high 
explosive  when  not  confined  or  when  exploded  on 
the  outside  of  a  body. 
Y^  Bombs  carried  by  an  airship  and  dropped  upon 
the  deck  of  a  battleship  may  damage  the  super- 
structure a  little,  but  they  can  have  no  material 
effect  upon  the  ship  itself i  unless  they  are  made 
heavy  enough  and  strong'^enough,  with  the  proper 
(^ armor-piercing  shape,  and  are  dropped  from  a 
sufficient  height  to  pierce  the  deck.  Not  unless 
the  bomb  can  be  made  to  penetrate  an  object  be- 
fore exploding  can  it  effect  much  destruction. 

At  Santiago,  the  Vesuvius,  with  its  pneumatic 
guns,  threw  several  six-hundred-pound  bombs, 
and  exploded  them  on  the  Spanish  fortifications, 
but  the  effect  was  wholly  insignificant. 

Several  years  ago,  when  the  subway  was  being 
built,  a  dynamite  magazine  accidentally  exploded 
in  front  of  the  Murray  Hill  Hotel.  The  magazine 
probably  contained  at  least  a  ton  of  dynamite.  A 
lot  of  windows  were  broken  in  the  vicinity,  some 

[  209  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

persons  were  injured,  and  a  multitude  badly 
scared,  but  the  damage  done  even  to  the  Murray 
Hill  Hotel  was  comparatively  small. 

It  has  been  predicted  that  Germany  would  send 
across  the  Channel  a  large  fleet  of  airships  and 
blow  up  British  towns  with  the  bombs  that  her 
great  gas-bags  might  drop  out  of  the  heavens. 

Now,  at  last,  the  much-vaunted  and  long-antici- 
pated Zeppelin  invasion  has  come,  and  what  is  the 
result?  Four  peaceful  citizens  killed,  and  about 
ten  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  property  damage. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  Germans  should  send 
a  fleet  of  a  hundred  airships  to  drop  bombs  upon 
the  city  of  London,  returning  to  Germany  each 
day  for  a  new  supply;  and  let  us  suppose  that 
each  airship  should  carry  explosives  enough  to 
destroy  two  houses  every  day,  which  would  be  far 
more  than  they  could  actually  average.  Yet,  if 
this  aerial  fleet  should  be  able  to  destroy  two 
hundred  houses  a  day,  or  say,  roughly,  sixty  thou- 
sand houses  a  year,  it  would  succeed  in  destroy- 
ing just  about  the  annual  growth  of  London,  for 
that  city  has,  during  the  past  ten  years,  built  sixty 
thousand  new  houses  every  year. 

The  dirigible  balloon  has  one  signal  advantage 
over  the  aeroplane  in  the  matter  of  bomb-drop- 
ping. It  can  both  carry  bigger  bombs  and  remain 
stationary  and  hover  while  it  drops  them.  With 
the  aeroplane,  however,  there  is  necessarily  great 
difficulty  in  hitting  underlying  objects,  on  account 

[210] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

of  the  high  speed  at  which  it  must  travel  to  sus- 
tain flight.  In  order  to  float,  an  aeroplane  must 
travel  about  thirty  miles  an  hour.  Even  at  this 
speed,  it  is  moving  forward  at  the  rate  of  forty- 
four  feet  a  second,  and  as  a  bomb  travels  at  the 
same  speed  as  the  aeroplane,  except  for  the  re- 
tardation of  the  air,  it  moves  forward  forty-four 
feet  the  first  second,  while  dropping  sixteen  feet. 
The  next  second  the  bomb  falls  sixty-four  feet 
and  moves  forward  forty-four  feet,  and  so  on. 

Sixty  miles  an  hour  is  a  moderate  speed  for  an 
aeroplane,  however,  and  at  that  speed  the  bomb 
travels  forward  eighty-eight  feet  per  second  when 
it  is  dropped,  so  that,  during  the  first  second, 
while  it  descends  but  sixteen  feet,  it  moves  for- 
ward eighty-eight  feet.  It  falls  sixty-four  feet 
the  next  second,  and  moves  forward  eighty-eight 
feet,  and  so  on,  descending  in  a  parabolic  curve, 
so  that,  by  the  time  it  strikes  the  earth,  it  may  be 
several  hundred  feet  from  the  place  at  which  it 
is  aimed. 

Although  the  dirigible  balloon,  a  Zeppelin,  for 
example,  may  hover  in  a  stationary  position  at 
will  when  dropping  bombs,  still  it  constitutes  such 
an  enormous  target  that  it  must  fly  very  high  in 
order  to  keep  out  of  range  of  gun-fire.  Guns  are 
now  made  which  can  reach  air-craft  at  the  height 
of  two  miles.  At  that  height,  or  at  half  that 
height,  there  can  be  but  little  accuracy  in  bomb- 
dropping,  even  from  the  stationary  Zeppelin. 

[211] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

The  efficiency  of  a  fighting  machine  is  exactly 
proportionate  to  the  amount  of  life  and  property 
that  it  can  destroy  in  a  given  time  with  the  min- 
imum exposure  of  property  and  life  in  order  to 
do  the  work.  If  a  fleet  of  a  dozen  Zeppelins  should 
be  able  to  attack  and  destroy  an  entire  British 
fortified  town  like  Dover,  it  would  be  a  good  in- 
vestment. If,  however,  the  loss  that  it  would  be 
able  to  inflict  upon  the  enemy  were  only  equal  to 
the  loss  that  the  British  would  inflict  upon  it,  then 
it  would  be  a  bad  investment,  or  at  least,  an  in- 
vestment without  profit,  for  the  reason  that,  in 
war,  it  is  poor  policy  to  risk  the  destruction  of 
a  valuable  war-engine  merely  for  the  destruction 
of  what  may  be  termed  non-belligerent  property 
of  an  enemy,  such  as  the  dwellings  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  a  city. 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  a  couple  of  Zep- 
pelins should  be  able  to  destroy  houses  in  a  Brit- 
ish town  having  a  value  ten  times  as  great  as  the 
value  of  one  of  the  Zeppelins,  and,  in  the  attack, 
should  lose  one  of  the  Zeppelins,  it  would  not  be 
a  profitable  raid,  for  a  Zeppelin,  being  useful  for 
scouting  purposes,  is  a  potential  factor  in  decid- 
ing the  issue  of  the  war,  whereas  the  houses 
have  practically  no  bearing  on  the  issue  of  the 
war. 

It  is  good  policy  to  use  both  men  and  ma- 
chinery of  war  only  for  the  destruction  of  men 
and  machinery  of  an  enemy,  and  not  for  the  de- 

[212] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

struction  of  non-combatant  inhabitants  and  prop- 
erty. 

Much  has  been  said  about  gun-fire  from  air- 
craft upon  underlying  troops.  A  man  standing 
on  the  earth,  being  seen  endwise,  presents  a  much 
smaller  target  to  the  vertical  fire  of  the  air-man 
than  he  presents  when  fired  at  horizontally  from 
the  earth,  because  in  the  one  case  he  is  seen  end-to, 
and  in  the  other  case  side-to.  Besides,  several 
other  men  may  be  exposed  to  the  horizontal  fire. 
The  air-man,  however,  is  a  conspicuous  target,  and 
if  his  machine  is  hit  and  crippled  the  result  is 
fatal  to  him. 

Aeroplaite  and  Dirigible  Compared 

As  I  have  for  many  years  predicted,  the  chief 
use  of  air-craft,  whether  aeroplane  or  dirigible 
balloon,  is  for  purposes  of  reconnaissance. 

This  war  has  amply  demonstrated  the  fact  that 
air-craft  are  of  enormous  value.  They  have  ren- 
dered surprises  in  force  practically  impossible. 
Each  side  has  been  able  to  keep  itself  fully  aware 
of  the  numbers  and  disposition  of  opposing 
troops. 

The  aeroplane  costs  but  a  fraction  of  what  the 
Zeppelin  costs,  while  the  Zeppelin  presents  a 
target  enormously  larger.  It  constitutes  a  target 
so  big  as  to  make  the  broad  side  of  a  barn  blush 
with  envy. 

[213] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

As  one  effective  hit  will  bring  down  either  aero- 
plane or  Zeppelin  alike,  obviously,  the  aeroplane 
has  the  advantage  over  the  Zeppelin,  as  a  target, 
equal  to  the  difference  in  size  multiplied  by  the 
difference  in  cost.  Furthermore,  the  aeroplane  is 
far  more  mobile  and  more  rapid  in  flight  than  the 
Zeppelin. 

In  judging  of  the  value  of  the  Zeppelin  for  pur- 
poses of  reconnaissance  on  land,  as  compared  with 
the  aeroplane,  we  must  take  into  account  the  fact 
that  a  large  number  of  aeroplanes  can  be  built 
for  the  cost  of  a  single  Zeppelin,  and  manned  with 
the  crew  of  a  single  Zeppelin,  and  that  these  many 
aeroplanes,  operating  in  concert,  will  be  able  to 
do  much  more  effective  work  than  one  Zeppelin. 

If  the  Allies  would  be  good  enough  not  to  shoot 
at  them,  Zeppelins  might  be  very  eflBcient  indeed, 
hovering  along  the  battle-front.  These  dirigibles 
have  been  very  conspicuous  for  their  absence 
from  the  battle-front  in  the  war. 

The  use  of  the  Zeppelin  as  a  troop-ship  has  yet 
to  be  proven,  and  its  value  for  the  purpose  will 
depend  upon  how  it  compares  with  the  aeroplane 
for  the  same  purpose.  Aeroplanes  capable  of  car- 
rying at  least  a  dozen  soldiers  each,  with  the  arms 
and  equipment  of  a  raider's  outfit,  can  now  be 
built.  Obviously,  as  a  large  number  of  such  aero- 
planes can  be  built  at  the  cost  of  a  single  Zeppelin, 
and  as  the  aeroplane  can  travel  even  faster  than 
the  Zeppelin,  the  Zeppelin  cannot  for  one  moment 

[214] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

compare  with  the  aeroplane,  even  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  troops. 

There  is  one  purpose,  however,  for  which  the 
Zeppelin  is  admirably  adapted,  where  it  is  much 
superior  to  the  aeroplane,  and  it  is  for  recon- 
naissance over  sea.  The  Zeppelin  can  hang  on  the 
sky  and  scan  the  sea  as  a  hawk  scans  a  field  for 
its  prey ;  and  as  it  can  carry  a  wireless  apparatus 
capable  of  transmitting  messages  to  a  distance  of 
two  hundred  miles  or  more,  it  can  keep  the  Ger- 
man fleet  constantly  informed  of  the  positions  of 
the  British  fleet  in  the  near  seas.  It  is  thus  able 
to  direct  a  sortie  of  ships  when  the  numbers  and 
disposition  of  the  enemy's  ships  are  such  as  to 
insure  success. 

The  Zeppelin  has  also  a  very  important  use  in 
the  detection  of  submarines,  for  the  reason  that 
from  a  vertical  position  submarines,  under  favor- 
able conditions,  can  easily  be  seen  at  considerable 
depths  below  the  surface,  and  the  Zeppelin,  with 
its  long-range  wireless,  is  able  promptly  to  report 
such  valuable  information. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  Germans  have 
planned  and  built  their  Zeppelins  mainly  for  over- 
sea fighting  against  England,  and  for  a  prospec- 
tive invasion  of  England.  I  think  they  must  have 
been  disappointed  in  the  lack  of  destructiveness 
that  their  bombs  have  had  when  dropped  from 
Zeppelins,  while  the  moral  effect  on  England  must 
also  have  been  disappointing. 

[215] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

From  the  point  of  German  advantage,  it  would 
be  a  good  plan  to  frighten  the  British  if  it  would 
take  the  fight  out  of  them,  but  it  is  a  very  bad 
plan  to  frighten  the  British  if  it  puts  more  fight 
into  them.  The  Zeppelin  raids  have  certainly  had 
the  effect  of  stimulating  the  British  fighting  spirit. 

It  is  especially  regrettable  that  the  United 
States  Government  did  not  heartily  co-operate 
with  the  Wright  Brothers  to  lead  the  world  in 
the  development  of  the  aeroplane ;  but  nothing  of 
the  sort  was  done.  *'We  have,"  as  Congressman 
Gardner  says,  ''been  experimenting  and  expect- 
ing and  reporting  and  contracting  and  consider- 
ing— in  fact,  we  have  been  doing  everything  ex- 
cept building  aeroplanes." 

The  Wright  Brothers,  however,  were  received 
with  glad  foreign  embrace.  They  were  generously 
encouraged  abroad,  both  by  co-operative  and  com- 
petitive experiments  and  by  liberal  purchases. 
The  result  was  that,  on  the  breaking  out  of  the 
European  War,  France,  for  example,  had  1,400 
aeroplanes,  while  the  United  States  h*ad  but 
twenty-three,  mostly  obsolete.  The  United  States 
Government  has  followed  its  time-honored  custom 
of  allowing  its  naval  and  military  inventions  to 
be  developed  and  perfected  abroad  before  adop- 
tion here. 

Prior  to  the  outbreak  of  the  European  War, 
this  government  ordered  from  abroad  an  up-to- 
date  French  aeroplane  with  two  Salmson  motors, 

[216] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

and  one  of  the  latest  German  aeroplanes  with  two 
Mercedes  motors,  with  the  intention  of  building 
a  few  of  these  machines.  Then  came  the  Eu- 
ropean War.  The  American  purchases  were  com- 
mandeered, and  we  were  thereby  prevented  from 
acquiring  the  much-desired  air-craft. 

The  de  Bange  obturator,  an  indispensable  part 
of  the  breech  mechanism  of  all  large  guns,  was 
originally  an  American  invention,  but  this  Gov- 
ernment allowed  it  to  be  developed  and  perfected 
abroad  and  given  a  foreign  name. 

Ericsson's  Monitor  was  taken  up  by  Europeans, 
right  where  its  private  builders  left  it,  and  it  has 
been  developed,  mainly  in  England,  into  the  mod- 
ern super-dreadnought. 

The  interchangeable  system  of  manufacture  of 
small  arms  was  developed  and  perfected  in  Amer- 
ica, but  received  no  encouragement  from  the  gov- 
ernment. This  system  is  now  universally  em- 
ployed in  the  manufacture  of  small  arms,  and  also 
in  the  manufacture  of  all  kinds  of  machinery.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  we  are  able  to  get  a  spare 
part  for  an  automobile  that  will  fit  in  place  per- 
fectly without  having  it  specially  made.  Before 
the  advent  of  the  interchangeable  system  of  manu- 
facture of  firearms,  a  sportsman  in  England  went 
to  his  gunsmith  to  be  measured  for  a  shotgun  just 
as  he  went  to  his  tailor  to  be  measured  for  a  suit  of 
clothes.  At  that  time,  no  two  guns  were  made 
exactly  alike,  and  no  piece  of  one  gun  would  fit 

[217] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

any  other  gun,  while  now  all  the  parts  of  one  gun 
will  fit  in  the  places  of  corresponding  parts  in 
every  other  gun  of  the  same  pattern. 

The  year  the  United  States  Government 
adopted  multi-perforated  smokeless  powder,  Con- 
gress appropriated  only  $30,000  for  smokeless 
powder,  the  orders  to  be  divided  among  the  dif- 
ferent manufacturers.  This  meant  that  inventors, 
like  myself,  who  had  started  in  a  small  way,  were 
driven  out  of  business.  I  went  to  England  with 
my  multi-perforated  smokeless-powder  grain, 
which  had  been  adopted  by  the  United  States 
Government,  but  found  it  hard  to  get  foreign 
manufacturers  to  recognize  either  the  superiority 
of  the  multi-perforated  grain  or  of  the  pure  nitro- 
cellulose powder.  The  excessive  erosion,  however, 
of  guns  used  in  the  present  war,  due  to  the  use 
of  powders  containing  a  high  percentage  of  nitro- 
glycerin, is  already  making  those  countries  using 
nitroglycerin  powders  look  longingly  to  the  su- 
perior smokeless  powder  used  in  the  United 
States. 

The  United  States  Government  has  as  yet  taken 
no  steps  worth  considering  toward  the  obtainment 
of  Zeppelins,  or  any  other  practical  dirigible  bal- 
loon. At  the  present  time,  there  is  not  one  in  the 
American  service. 

At  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  abroad,  France 
had  22  dirigibles  and  1,400  aeroplanes;  Russia, 
18  dirigibles  and  800  aeroplanes;  Great  Britain, 

[218] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

9  dirigibles  and  400  aeroplanes;  Belgium,  2 
dirigibles  and  100  aeroplanes;  Germany,  40 
dirigibles  and  1,000  aeroplanes ;  Austria,  8  dirigi- 
bles and  400  aeroplanes;  while  the  United  States 
had,  as  I  have  mentioned,  only  23  aeroplanes, 
mostly  obsolete. 

Last  year,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  appointed 
a  Board  to  investigate  the  subject  of  aviation  for 
the  Navy,  and  to  make  recommendations.  The 
Board  recommended  the  appropriation  of  $1,300,- 
000  for  that  year,  but  Congress  cut  off  the  first 
left-hand  numeral  and  appropriated  the  sum  of 
$350,000  for  the  purpose. 

The  present  war  has  demonstrated  that  air- 
craft are  the  eyes  of  both  armies  and  navies.  If 
the  Wright  Brothers  could  have  come  to  the  coun- 
try's aid  in  the  Spanish  War,  the  American  fleet 
would  not  have  remained  in  doubt  outside  Santi- 
ago Harbor.  Before  the  advent  of  aviation,  one 
of  the  chief  desiderata  to  a  commanding  officer 
was  to  find  out  what  the  enemy  was  doing  behind 
the  hill.  Without  the  aeroplane,  it  is  impossible 
to  prevent  surprises  in  force,  and  to  avoid  the 
deadly  ambuscade.  The  aeroplane  is  absolutely 
indispensable  for  the  location  of  masked  batteries. 
It  is  impossible,  without  aeroplanes,  even  to  ap- 
proximate the  number  and  disposition  of  troops  to 
which  an  army  may  be  opposed.  It  is  necessary 
to  have  not  only  a  sufficient  number  of  aeroplanes, 
especially  designed  and  equipped  for  this  pur- 

1219] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

pose,  but  also  other  aeroplanes,  armed  and 
equipped,  to  co-operate  with  them,  and  defend 
them  against  attack  from  the  aeroplanes  of  the 
enemy.  Just  as  dreadnoughts  require  battle- 
cruisers,  and  both  require  torpedo-boat  destroy- 
ers, and  all  require  other  scout-ships  and  sub- 
marines, for  co-operation  against  a  fleet  of  an 
enemy,  so  do  dirigibles  and  the  different  types 
of  aeroplanes,  according  to  their  purpose,  require 
one  another  for  concert  of  action. 

"What  we  have  already  seen  of  battles  fought 
in  the  sky  leads  us  to  surmise  that  aerial  battles 
of  the  future  will  be  fought  on  a  much  larger 
scale.  It  will  be  found  that  the  commander  who 
expects  to  conquer  the  ground  held  by  an  enemy 
must  first  conquer  the  sky.  Aviation  carries  war 
into  the  third  dimension. 

Not  only  must  the  advance  or  retirement  of 
troops  be  supported  by  artillery  thundering  from 
hill  to  hill,  but  also  the  troops  must  be  supported 
and  guided  by  pilots  in  the  sky. 

The  last  Congress  appropriated  $1,000,000  for 
the  aviation  purposes  of  the  Navy.  It  is  the  same 
million  dollars  that  was  cut  from  last  year's  ap- 
propriation, which  ought  to  have  been  expended 
for  the  purpose  during  that  period. 

It  is  a  strange  paradox  that  America,  which 
has  led  the  world  in  discovery  and  invention  as 
applied  to  the  industrial  arts  and  sciences,  should 
follow  the  rest  of  the  world  in  their  adoption  by 

[220] 


AERIAL  WARFARE 

the  Army  and  Navy.  The  trouble  is  not  with  the 
bureaus  and  boards  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  which 
have  merely  the  power  to  recommend  such  things, 
but  it  is  the  fault  of  Congressional  false  economy. 
As  long  as  we  allow  other  nations  to  lead  us,  both 
in  the  character  and  quantity  of  naval  and  mili- 
tary equipment,  we  are  destined  always  to  be 
weaker  than  other  nations  in  that  equipment ;  con- 
sequently, when  war  comes,  we  spend  money  with 
the  extravagance  of  frenzy  to  remedy  the  defect. 
We  economized  before  the  War  of  1812,  and  dur- 
ing that  war  we  wasted  ten  times  as  much  as  we 
had  saved  by  our  economy.  We  had  disqualified 
ourselves  by  our  economies  to  such  an  extent  be- 
fore the  outbreak  of  the  great  Civil  War  that  this 
conflict  became  one  of  the  most  deadly  and  most 
expensive  in  the  history  of  the  world.  What  we 
saved  by  our  economies,  compared  to  what  we 
lost  by  them  on  that  occasion,  is  like  a  drop  of 
water  to  a  river  of  water.  But  we  failed  to  profit 
by  the  experience,  and,  when  the  Spanish  War 
broke  out,  we  spent  money  with  all  the  lavishness 
of  prodigal  inefficiency. 

If  we  could  only  be  as  wise  as  we  have  been 
lessoned  by  our  sad  experience,  we  would  imme- 
diately take  adequate  measures  to  forefend  our- 
selves against  a  repetition  of  such  experiences; 
and  one  of  those  measures  would  be  the  building 
of  an  aerial  fleet  commensurate  with  our  large 
needs. 

[221] 


CHAPTER  IX 
OUR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

LIFE  being  a  reaction  between  the  individual 
i  and  environing  stimuli,  it  naturally  follows 
that  those  stimuli  not  destructive  are  neces- 
sarily formative. 

The  health  and  development  of  nations  are  gov- 
erned by  the  same  law  that  governs  the  health  and 
development  of  individuals.  When  an  individual 
is  subjected  to  a  burden  that  does  not  break  him, 
or  to  a  trial  that  he  is  able  to  master,  he  is 
strengthened,  not  weakened,  by  the  burden  or  the 
trial.  Every  individual  is  constantly  being  at- 
tacked by  microbes  of  disease.  So  long  as  he  pos- 
sesses sufficient  powers  of  resistance  to  repel 
invasion  of  disease,  his  ability  to  resist  disease  is 
strengthened,  and  his  immunity  to  further  attacks 
is  increased.  It  is  only  when  disease  gets  inside 
a  man  that  it  becomes  a  destroyer. 

It  is  not  a  bad  thing  for  a  hen,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  a  very  good  thing  for  a  hen  to  lay  eggs 
and  sit  on  them  and  hunger  for  three  weeks  in 
order  to  hatch  the  chicks,  and  then  to  scratch  for 
them  and  hunt  for  them  until  they  are  able  to  take 
care  of  themselves.    She  is  stronger,  healthier, 

[222] 


OUR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

more  intelligent,  more  competent,  and  altogether 
a  better  hen  because  of  her  exertion  and  her  sacri- 
fice. The  rearing  of  her  chicks  imposes  no  burden 
on  the  farmer,  because  she  gets  the  wealth  for 
their  growth  out  of  the  ground. 

The  human  mother  who  bears  and  rears  sons 
and  daughters  is  supremely  rewarded  for  all  the 
pain  and  the  burden.  The  husband  and  wife  who 
toil  for  each  other  and  their  children  are  able  to 
arrive  thereby,  and  only  thereby,  at  most  complete 
living  and  the  goal  of  supreme  happiness.  Happi- 
ness is  our  sense  of  the  normal  exercise  of  faculty; 
consequently  happiness  is  the  feel  of  normal  life; 
unhappiness  the  feel  of  abnormal  life. 

Just  as  we  are  strengthened  by  bearing  all  bur- 
dens that  are  not  so  heavy  as  to  crush  us  beneath 
their  weight,  so  the  nation  is  enriched  by  the  bur- 
dens it  bears  and  the  expenditures  it  makes  for 
the  general  welfare  of  its  people.  We  may  help 
our  understanding  of  this  matter  by  recognizing 
the  truth  that  everything  primarily  comes  out  of 
the  ground,  and  that  whatever  comes  out  of  the 
ground,  whether  from  agriculture  or  mining,  is 
newly-created  wealth.  Whatever  stimulates  a 
more  active  development  of  our  natural  resources 
produces  accordingly  a  proportionate  amount  of 
new  wealth. 

The  people  have  been  taught,  until  the  belief  is 
now  well-nigh  universal,  that  the  cost  of  establish- 
ing, equipping,  maintaining,  and  supporting  a 

[223] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

standing  army,  the  cost  of  building,  manning,  and 
supporting  a  large  navy,  and  the  expense  of  manu- 
facturing and  storing  large  supplies  of  ammuni- 
tion and  other  war-materials,  represent  just  so 
much  dead  loss  to  the  taxpayers  of  the  country. 

It  is  necessary  to  correct  this  error,  and  to  dis- 
seminate the  truth  that  the  building  of  battle- 
ships, the  manufacture  of  arms  and  ammunition, 
the  manufacture  of  supplies  of  food  and  cloth- 
ing, require  large  numbers  of  laborers  and 
skilled  artisans,  who  become  a  great  market  for 
food  and  supplies  of  every  description  for  their 
convenience  and  comfort,  thereby  giving  employ- 
ment to  myriads  of  others,. back  to  the  farmer; 
while  the  money  paid  for  wages  and  produce  is 
kept  constantly  in  circulation. 

It  is  the  difficulty  of  paying  taxes  from  the 
pockets  of  poverty  that  makes  taxes  burdensome, 
and  not  their  size.  If  the  ability  to  pay  a  given 
amount  in  tax  be  tripled,  the  tax  itself  may  be 
doubled,  and  the  taxpayers  still  be  the  gainers. 

Wealth  is  what  labor  gets  out  of  the  ground; 
and  whatever  stimulates  labor,  or  creates  a  de- 
mand for  labor,  is  a  direct  stimulus  to  prosperity, 
by  increasing  both  the  number  of  laborers  and  the 
hours  of  labor,  and  by  affording  a  market  for 
the  products  of  labor. 

If  all  of  those  thrown  out  of  positions  in  a  panic 
were  to  be  put  to  work  by  the  government  in 
the  production  of  war-materials,  there  would  re- 

[224] 


OVR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

suit  no  hard  times,  and  the  entire  country  would 
be  better  off. 

The  large  standing  army  indispensable  to  Ger- 
many costs  vast  sums  annually,  but  the  standard 
of  personal  efficiency  is  raised  so  much  by  mili- 
tary training,  and  industry  is  so  stimulated  to 
meet  government  requirements,  that  the  Germans 
have  captured  markets  all  over  the  world  for  the 
sale  of  their  manufactured  products  in  ever- 
increasing  quantities. 

According  to  statistics,  we  Americans  spend 
every  year  on  sensuous  indulgence,  on  our  hilar- 
ities— joy  food,  joy  drink,  joy  dope,  and  night- 
outings — nine  thousand  million  dollars,  which,  in 
gold,  would  weigh  more  than  thirteen  thousand 
tons — the  weight  of  a  good-sized  battleship. 

The  biggest  super-dreadnoughts  cost  $15,000,- 
000  each,  built  in  pairs ;  built  a  hundred  at  a  time, 
they  certainly  would  not  cost  over  $12,000,000 
each.  We  could  build,  for  what  we  spend  on  sensu- 
ous indulgence,  750  super-dreadnoughts ;  we  could 
build  160  super-dreadnoughts  a  year  for  what  we 
spend  on  alcoholic  beverages ;  83  a  year  for  what 
we  spend  on  tobacco;  three  a  year  for  what  we 
spend  on  chewing-gum. 

The  total  amount  that  we  spend  each  year  on 
our  Army  and  Navy  is  about  $250,000,000.  Con- 
sequently, we  spend  more  than  twelve  times  as 
much  on  alcoholic  drinks  and  tobacco  as  we  do  on 
our  Army  and  Navy. 

[225] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

I  do  not  mean  to  preach  a  temperance  sermon, 
or  to  advise  against  the  use  of  tobacco.  Never- 
theless, I  do  think  that  for  every  dollar  we  spend 
on  indulgence,  we  might  drop  a  couple  of  cents 
into  the  side-till  just  for  insurance — for  the  safety 
of  our  country  against  war,  in  order  that  our  joys 
of  living  may  be  continued. 

The  small  burden  of  armaments  in  proportion 
to  the  burden  of  luxuries  is  very  well  stated  in  the 
following  quotation  from  ''Some  Economic 
Aspects  of  War,"  by  Professor  C.  Emery: — 

'^Certainly  Block  is  not  likely  to  minimize  the 
extent  of  such  expenditures,  as  he  has  been  one  of 
the  leading  writers  to  show  the  immensity  of 
this  burden,  and  yet  he  himself  states  that  the 
military  expenditures  of  different  European  coun- 
tries vary  from  2  per  cent,  to  3.8  per  cent,  of  the 
total  income.  Even  Germany,  with  her  great  or- 
ganization, takes  less  than  3  per  cent,  of  the  actual 
income  for  its  maintenance,  both  of  army  and 
navy;  and  when  we  think  of  the  expenditures  for 
luxuries,  many  of  them  harmful  in  themselves, 
the  extent  of  military  expenditures  appears  even 
less.  In  Germany,  for  instance,  three  times  as 
much  is  spent  for  intoxicating  drinks  as  for  the 
support  of  military  and  naval  establishments. 
One-third  less  consumption  of  beer  and  liquor  on 
the  part  of  the  German  people  would  take  care  of 
this  part  of  the  budget  altogether," 

[226] 


(0 

f 

1 

3 

Vi 

■ 

•*-» 

'<« 

^^H 

TJ 

•^ 

^H 

C 

« 
Q 

^H 

0) 
Q     . 

*s 

H 

X 

^H 

UJ 

■§ 

H 

to 

H 

to 

•^ 

^H 

'4-' 

^ 

^^^H 

CO 

^2 

^m 

T3 

%!• 

^H 

0 

^1 

'c 

1 

D 

^^^H 

«■• 

^ 

^H           <v 

CO 

^ 

^B 

c 

^ 

I 

c 

oT 

^m 

< 

1 

0) 

E 

^ 

s 

i; 

Q 

o 

^ 

^1 

s 

o 

§ 

CO 

5 

^ 

1 

! 

ll 

1 

1 

1 

1 

II 

1 

OUR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

There  is  no  branch  of  insurance  so  important 
as  insurance  against  war.  There  is  no  other  thing 
insured,  of  which  the  loss  is  so  vital  as  that  of 
one's  country,  and  there  is  no  kind  of  insurance 
where  the  cost  of  security  is  so  small  in  compari- 
son with  the  value  of  the  thing  insured.  Mr. 
Stockton  puts  this  very  clearly  in  his  book,  **  Peace 
Insurance": — 

'*For  insurance  against  loss  by  burglary,  the 
nation  expends  $2,850,000  annually;  for  insurance 
against  crime  in  the  form  of  municipal,  county, 
and  state  police  we  expend  $110,000,000  annually; 
making  a  total  of  $112,850,000  expended  for 
premiums  on  crime  insurance  alone.  .  .  .  A  total 
annual  amount  on  fire  and  crime  insurance  com- 
bined is  $594,186,104,  or  about  350  million  more 
than  for  all  our  military  forces.  Considering 
these  figures  we  may  conclude  that  our  military 
expenditures  are  by  no  means  greater  than  the 
probable  loss  by  a  war;  that  they  are  small  com- 
pared with  the  amounts  spent  for  fire  and  crime 
insurance,  and  that  the  insurance  rate  is  low  com- 
pared with  that  for  other  kinds  of  insurance  in 
effect  in  the  business  world.'* 

During  periods  of  peace,  there  tends  to  be  estab- 
lished an  equilibrium  of  supply  and  demand  be- 
tween our  developed  industries  and  our  unde- 
veloped resources.   Consequently,  when  war  comes 

[227] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

and  stimulates  enormonsly  all  our  developed  in- 
dustries— arts,  sciences,  and  manufactures — a 
correspondingly  greater  demand  is  placed  upon 
our  natural  resources,  and  their  development  is 
proportionately  increased. 

The  result  is  that  the  nation  as  a  whole  is  not 
impoverished  in  the  least  by  the  burden  of  arma- 
ments, but  is  rather  benefited  by  their  support. 
Also,  a  nation  may  likewise  be  economically  bene- 
fited by  actual  war,  so  long  as  it  has  such  re- 
sources, number  of  population,  industrial  arts  and 
sciences,  and  naval  and  mihtary  equipment  as  to 
prevent  subjugation  and  the  humiliation  and  deg- 
radation of  being  forced  to  pay  ransom  or  tribute 
in  the  shape  of  a  large  war  indemnity  to  a  foreign 
Power. 

The  fact  that  a  war  indemnity  takes  gold  out 
of  the  country,  and  gives  it  to  another  people, 
makes  the  indemnity  a  national  calamity.  But 
when  money  is  spent  within  the  country,  as  it  is 
for  armaments,  the  condition  is  entirely  different. 

The  following  excerpt  from  ''The  Valor  of 
Ignorance,"  by  General  Homer  Lea,  admirably 
presents  this: 

'* Budgets  are  but  the  sums  total  of  the  symbols 
of  wealth.  Whether  they  are  great  or  small,  the 
wealth  of  the  nation  varies  not  one  potato.  An  in- 
dividual measures  his  wealth  by  coinage,  but  a 
nation  only  by  that  which  coinage  represents. 

[228] 


OUR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

**As  a  man  squanders  his  money,  he  becomes 
impoverished;  hut  it  is  only  when  the  resources 
and  means  of  producing  that  which  money  repre- 
sents are  destroyed  or  diminished  that  the  wealth 
of  a  nation  is  lessened.  The  armament  of  a  na- 
tion, instead  of  being  indicative  of  its  impoverish- 
ment, is  rather  an  indication  of  its  capacity." 

It  is  a  law  of  psychology  that,  when  we  are 
subjected  to  a  supreme  test,  we  develop  unrealized 
resources  within  ourselves;  resources  that  never 
would  be  developed,  nor  could  be,  except  through 
such  trial.  By  consequence,  it  is  evident  that 
supreme  trial  is  an  indispensability  to  the  best 
development  of  either  individuals  or  nations. 
However  severe  may  be  the  trial  that  results  in 
the  supreme  development  of  the  natural  resources 
of  the  nation,  and  of  the  dormant  resources  in 
its  people,  it  is  essentially  beneficial  to  the  nation. 

Herbert  Spencer  said  that,  just  as  it  is  impos- 
sible to  get  a  five-fingered  hand  into  a  three- 
fingered  glove,  with  a  separate  finger  in  each 
pocket,  so  it  is  impossible  to  get  a  complex  thought 
into  a  mind  not  sufficiently  complex  to  receive  it. 
It  is  doubtless  impossible,  therefore,  to  prove  to 
the  pacifist  mind  that  the  money  spent  in  building 
warships  cannot  be  counted  as  so  much  loss  to  the 
nation. 

The  money  spent  by  the  government  in  build- 
ing fighting- ships  could  not  be  esteemed  so  much 

[229] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

money  lost,  even  if  the  ships  were  useless.  The 
government  taxes  the  people  for  the  money  to 
build  the  ships,  and  then  pays  the  money  back 
to  the  people  again  for  the  ships.  The  people  get 
their  money  all  back,  and  the  government  gets 
the  ships.  The  people  lose  nothing,  and  the  gov- 
ernment is  the  gainer  to  the  value  of  the  ships.  It 
may  be  argued  that  the  labor  of  the  people  is  lost, 
but  what  of  it?  Labor  is  neither  money  nor 
wealth;  it  merely  represents  time.  It  does  not 
hurt  the  laborers  to  do  the  work ;  on  the  contrary, 
it  does  them  good.  They  pay  but  an  infinitesimal 
part  of  the  tax  for  building  the  ships.  Their  occu- 
pation constitutes  them  a  market  for  manufac- 
tured articles  and  farm  produce,  which  pays  the 
manufacturers  and  the  farmers  a  profit  far  in  ex- 
cess of  their  part  of  the  tax  for  the  ships,  since 
by  the  increased  demand  they  both  get  better 
prices  and  sell  more  goods.  The  farmer  exerts 
additional  effort  to  supply  the  demand,  for  the 
laborers  who  build  the  ships,  and  the  manufac- 
turers who  supply  their  wares,  call  upon  the 
farmer  for  greater  supplies  of  produce  than  they 
could  call  for  if  the  fighting-ships  were  not  built. 
The  farmer,  always  glad  to  get  more  out  of  the 
ground  when  he  can  sell  to  advantage,  is  stimu- 
lated to  extra  effort  to  get  the  greater  profit,  and 
he  is  made  richer  for  it.  The  manufacturer  is 
made  richer  for  it,  and  the  laborer  is  helped  by 
higher  wages  and  by  more  continuous  occupation. 

[230] 


OUR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

The  result  is  that  the  fighting-ships  have  cost 
nothing.  On  the  contrary,  their  production  has 
benefited  all.  Everybody  is  made  better  and 
richer  through  the  building  of  them. 

It  is  especially  significant  and  pertinent  that 
the  added  employment  of  labor  in  the  construction 
of  armaments  adds  greatly  to  the  number  of  tax- 
payers. Consequently,  the  burden  of  taxation  is 
thereby  borne  by  a  larger  number  of  persons, 
with  a  corresponding  lessening  of  the  burden  on 
each  individual.  This  is  one  of*  the  reasons  why 
poverty  is  not  increased  by  increased  government 
expenditures  in  the  employment  of  labor. 

The  enjoyment  of  life  being  derived  entirely 
from  exercise  of  our  faculties,  the  more  useful 
exercise  we  get  within  our  strength,  the  happier 
we  are.  The  building  of  battleships,  by  putting 
us  more  to  use,  serves  the  double  purpose  of  get- 
ting more  wealth  out  of  the  ground  and  making 
us  happier.  It  may  be  argued  that  this  would 
not  be  true  if  our  economic  institutions  were  not 
slack,  and  that,  by  perfecting  these  institutions, 
every  one  would  receive  his  due  amount  of  normal 
stimulus,  and  would  be  getting  out  of  the  ground 
bis  normal  amount  of  wealth.  This  is  all  very 
true,  but  our  economic  institutions  are  not  yet 
perfected,  and  the  cost  of  building  battleships 
comes  out  of  the  slack  in  our  institutions.  The 
work  merely  helps  take  up  some  of  the  slack. 

[When  we  have  looked  upon  our  Navy,  remem- 
[231] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

bering  what  the  pacifists  have  told  us  about  its 
enormous  cost,  we  are  strongly  impressed  with 
the  colossal  expenditure,  not  realizing  that  the 
Navy  has  actually  cost  nothing.  Its  production 
has  been  a  source  of  profit  and  benefit  to  the 
people. 

That  which  determines  the  size  of  a  burden  is 
the  ability  to  bear  it.  Our  burden  of  armaments, 
borne  upon  the  united  backs  of  a  hundred  mil- 
lion people,  with  an  aggregate  wealth  of  more 
than  a  hundred  and  thirty  billion  dollars,  with  an 
annual  increase  of  wealth  of  over  four  billion  dol- 
lars, becomes  insignificant  compared  with,  the 
ability  to  support  it.  Size,  like  distance  and  time, 
has  no  meaning,  except  in  a  relative  sense,  for 
space  and  time  are  limitless.  As  compared  with 
space,  a  mustard  seed  is  exactly  as  large  as  the 
sun. 

We  hear  much  about  the  tremendous  burden  of 
the  present  conflict  upon  the  warring  nations.  The 
pacifists  tell  us  that  they  are  destined  so  to  exhaust 
themselves  that,  when  the  war  is  over,  we  need 
have  no  fear  of  any  one  of  them,  or  of  a  coalition 
of  them,  because  they  will  have  neither  men  nor 
money  with  which  to  fight. 

The  first  six  months  of  the  war  cost  about  six 
billion  dollars.  Now,  assuming  that  the  first  year 
of  the  war  should  cost  even  as  much  as  fifteen  bil- 
lion dollars,  this  would  be  only  five  per  cent,  of  the 
wealth  of  the  warring  Powers.   But,  it  must  be  re- 

[232] 


OUR  ARMAMENTS  NOT  A  BURDEN 

membered,  that  the  same  thing  largely  holds  true 
in  the  case  of  war  that  holds  true  in  the  case  of 
armaments  in  time  of  peace.  The  cost  comes  out 
of  the  ground,  for  the  most  part.  In  short,  the 
wealth  created  by  the  added  stimulus  in  great 
measure  compensates  for  the  loss,  especially  when 
the  money  spent  is  chiefly  returned  to  the  people 
themselves.  The  actual  out-of-pocket  loss  to  the 
nations  in  the  present  war,  taking  into  account  its 
economic  advantages,  even  during  the  war,  will 
probably  not  exceed  two  and  a  half  per  cent.,  and 
I  doubt  if  it  will  amount  to  that  much. 

The  total  number  of  killed  and  wounded  in  the 
European  War  during  the  first  six  months  is  esti- 
mated at  about  two  million.  Most  of  those 
wounded  will  suffer  very  little  permanent  in- 
jury. 

The  population  of  the  warring  nations  is  more 
than  four  hundred  millions,  taking  into  account 
only  such  part  of  the  vast  Indian  population  in 
proportion  to  the  percentage  of  troops  furnished 
by  them  as  compares  with  the  percentage  fur- 
nished from  the  United  Kingdom  to  the  number  of 
its  inhabitants.  Consequently,  the  total  loss  in 
killed  and  wounded  during  the  first  six  months  of 
the  war  was  less  than  a  half  of  one  per  cent,  of  the 
population,  and  as  the  number  of  killed  does  not 
exceed  ten  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  killed 
and  wounded,  the  loss  during  the  first  six  months 
was  about  a  tenth  of  half  of  one  per  cent.;  in 

[  233 1 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

other  words,  only  about  a  twentieth  of  one  per 
cent. 

After  the  war  has  run  for  a  year,  the  total  loss 
in  killed  and  wounded  will  not  exceed  one  per  cent, 
of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  total  in  killed  will  not 
exceed  a  tenth  of  one  per  cent. 

When  the  war  is  over,  any  one  of  the  warring 
Powers,  unless  Germany  is  exceedingly  humbled, 
will  be  in  better  condition  in  every  way  to  fight 
us  than  it  would  have  been  before  the  war  broke 
out. 


[234] 


CHAPTER  X 

EGO-FANATIC  GOOD  INTENTIONS  AND 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  NATIONAL  DE- 
FENSE 

"If  you  will  study  history  you  will  find  that  freedom,  when  it  has 
been  destroyed,  has  always  been  destroyed  by  those  who  shelter 
themselves  under  the  cover  of  its  forms,  and  who  speak  its  language 
with  unparalleled  eloquence  and  vigor." — Lord  Salisbury. 

There  is  a  no  more  consistent  thing  in  its  constancy  than  human 
inconsistency. 

MANY  of  those  who  are  most  pretentious 
about  the  virtue  of  a  meek  and  lowly  spirit 
manifest  characteristics  the  exact  oppo- 
site of  their  self-vaunted  pretensions.  Often  the 
most  enthusiastic  and  devout  workers  for  a  prin- 
ciple are  themselves,  when  put  to  trial,  most  pro- 
nounced violators  of  that  principle. 

Some  years  ago,  while  on  ship  for  England,  I 
formed  the  acquaintance  of  Sir  William  Wyndeer, 
of  ^  ustralia.  He  told  me  that  there  was  a  famous 
woman  pacifist  on  board,  who  wanted  to  meet  me. 
She  was  a  notorious  militant  moral  reformer — 
the  Carrie  Nation  of  England.  I  went  with  him 
to  where  she  was  sitting  on  the  deck  in  a  steamer- 

[235] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

chair,  and,  on  being  introduced,  sat  down  beside 
her. 

She  opened  the  conversation  with  the  remark: 
**Do  you  know  that  men  like  you  ought  to  be 
hanged;  that  hanging  is  too  good  for  you;  that 
men  like  you,  who  invent  and  make  explosives  and 
guns  to  kill  people,  ought  to  be  killed  with  them 
yourselves!  That  would  give  you  a  dose  of  your 
own  medicine. ' ' 

I  replied  by  asking  her  what  she  thought  of  the 
Armenian  atrocities,  which  were  at  that  time  being 
perpetrated. 

'  *  What  do  I  think  of  them  ? ' '  she  answered.  ' '  I 
think  just  this — that,  if  I  were  the  Queen  of  Eng- 
land, I  would  put  an  end  to  that  business  pretty 
quick.'* 

**How  would  you  do  it T'  I  asked. 

**Why,"  she  responded,  '*I  would  go  there 
with  an  army,  and  exterminate  those  beastly 
Turks." 

''If  you  were  to  do  that,"  said  I,  "surely  you 
would  need  some  of  the  tools  for  killing  people, 
like  those  you  blame  me  for  inventing,  would  you 
not?" — She  would  not  speak  to  me  after  that. 

In  the  Dark  Ages,  they  who  were  responsible 
for  inflicting  upon  heretics  the  most  exquisite  tor- 
tures, were  the  foremost  good-intentionists  of 
their  time.  They  believed  they  were  following  the 
teachings  of  Christ,  and  applying  them  in  their 
business  and  social  relations.    Their  aim  was  to 

[236] 


EGO-FANATIC  GOOD  INTENTIONS 

practise  what  they  preached :  "Love  one  another," 
**Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself/'  **0n  earth  peace, 
good  will  toward  men. '  * 

So  imbued  were  they  with  what  they  conceived 
to  be  divine  principles  that  it  was  self-evident  to 
them  that  there  was  no  excuse  for  any  one  holding 
any  other  opinion  than  theirs,  and  that  any  one 
who  held  a  different  opinion  was  an  enemy  of 
God  and  man,  and  should  be  punished  accord- 
ingly. They  called  difference  from  their  opinion 
heresy,  which  was  branded  as  the  most  heinous  of 
all  crimes.  Those  good-intentionists  of  the  Tor- 
quemada  type  racked,  flayed,  and  burned,  with  a 
meek  and  lowly  spirit,  for  the  love  of  God.  The 
horror  of  St.  Bartholomew  was  to  them  merely  a 
frolic  of  brotherly  love. 

Advocates  of  disarmament,  non-resistance,  and 
the  subversion  of  the  military  spirit  are  them- 
selves most  militant  creatures.  They  fail  to  see 
that,  if  retiring,  non-resistant  pacifism  is  the  best 
policy  for  a  nation  to  adopt  in  order  to  get  what 
it  wants,  they  themselves  should  adopt  such  paci- 
fism to  get  what  they  want.  While  they  decry 
every  manner  of  aggression,  still  they  undertake 
to  enforce  their  doctrines  by  most  aggressive  prac- 
tices. 

Never  in  all  human  history  has  any  person  or 
class  of  persons  attempted  to  proselyte  others  to 
a  doctrine  of  mildness,  meekness,  self-sacrifice, 
and  lowly-spiritedness  without  attempting  to  en- 

[  237  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

force  the  doctrine.  In  so  doing,  the  practice  has 
been  the  exact  opposite  of  the  preachment. 

Robespierre  and  Marat  notably  exemplified  this 
truth.  Before  the  French  Eevolution,  Robespierre 
was  noted  as  a  pacifist  of  the  most  pretentious 
cheek-turning  type,  and  Marat  was  a  pacific  moral- 
ist dyed  in  the  wool.  When  raised  to  dictatorial 
power,  however,  Robespierre  became  the  wicked- 
est and  most  venomous  of  all  the  fanged  monsters 
of  cruelty  in  the  history  of  mankind ;  while  bloody 
Marat,  clothed  with  authority,  used  murder  as 
the  sole  means  of  reform.  The  actions  of  Robes- 
pierre and  Marat  were  the  exact  opposite  of  their 
code  for  the  conduct  of  others. 

The  advocates  of  non-resistance  may  be  per- 
fectly  conscientious.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  for 
one  moment  that  the  majority  of  them  are  actu- 
ated by  the  best  intentions  and  the  kindliest  of  mo- 
tives. Torquemada  sincerely  hoped  to  do  a  great 
good  by  torturing  heretics  in  the  Spanish  Inqui- 
sition. He  is  notable  among  those  who  have  paved 
broad  highways  of  Hell  with  good  intentions. 

The  hyper-sentimental  pacifists  are  today  ac- 
tively engaged  in  paving  a  broad  highway  through 
this  country,  over  which  the  hell  of  war  is  invited 
by  them. 

Devotion  to  the  end  justified  the  means  to  such 
a  well-meaning  fanatic  as  Torquemada.  The  same 
was  doubtless  true  of  Catherine  de'  Medici,  who 
mothered  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew.    The 

[238] 


EGO-FANATIC  GOOD  INTENTIONS 

bloody  Duke  of  Alva,  Executioner  Extraordinary 
to  Philip  II  of  Spain,  who  undertook  the  task  of 
killing  the  entire  population  of  the  Netherlands, 
because  their  religious  opinion  differed  from  the 
Spanish  brand,  could  not  have  been  so  enthusi- 
astically devoted  to  the  monstrous  villainy  had  he 
not  been  inspired  by  what  was  to  his  mind  the 
best  of  intentions. 

It  is  remarkable  what  an  influence  a  very  little 
thing  may  sometimes  have  in  shaping  the  policy 
of  a  people  or  the  fate  of  a  nation.  Religious 
sects  have  been  formed  upon  the  various  interpre- 
tations of  a  single  phrase ;  a  difference  of  opinion 
about  the  meaning  of  a  word  has  set  them  at  one 
another's  throats. 

Millions  upon  millions  of  dollars  have  been 
spent  in  the  United  States  in  peace  propagandism, 
and  eloquent  lungs  have  hoarsed  themselves  to 
defeat  Congressional  appropriations  for  defense, 
simply  because  the  phrase,  preparation  for  war, 
has  been  used  instead  of  the  phrase,  preparation 
against  war. 

An  organization  of  American  women,  under  the 
head,  Woman's  Peace  Party,  has  lately  been  cre- 
ated. The  main  resolution  adopted  by  the  organ- 
ization is  the  following : 

'^Resolved: 

''That  ive  denounce  ivith  all  the  earnestness  of 
which  we  are  capable  the  concerted  attempt  now 

[239] 


DEFENSELESS  'AMERICA 

being  made  to  force  this  country  into  still  further 
preparedness  for  war.  We  desire  to  make  a  sol- 
emn appeal  to  the  higher  attributes  of  our  common 
humanity  to  help  us  unmask  this  menace  to  our 
civilization.'^ 

They  have  made  the  grave  mistake  of  using  the 
expression  for  war  in  place  of  the  expression 
against  war. 

The  pacifist  propagandists,  the  army  and  navy 
men,  and  all  their  friends  and  supporters,  are  alike 
agreed  that  it  is  wise  to  make  efficient  prepara- 
tions against  war.  None  of  us  wants  war,  but 
when  we,  who  believe  in  armaments,  speak  of  them 
as  preparations  for  war,  then  the  pacifists  are  in 
immediate  disagreement  with  us.  Let  us,  there- 
fore, in  future  substitute  the  phrase  against  war 
for  the  phrase  for  war. 

Among  the  organizers  of  this  so-called  party 
are  women  of  national  prominence.  They  are  sin- 
cere in  their  purpose,  their  aim  is  high.  They  are 
emulating  the  dictum  of  Emerson,  for  they  have 
hitched  their  wagon  to  a  star — Dr.  David  Starr — 
(never  mind  the  Jordan).  They  solemnly  make 
this  pledge : 

^'We  do  hereby  band  ourselves  together  to  de- 
mand that  war  should  be  abolished/' 

It  is  well  to  note  that  they  have  used  the  word 
should  instead  of  shall. 

[240] 


EGO-FANATIC  GOOD  INTENTIONS 

The  greatest  difficulty  in  teaching  truth  is  to 
remove  the  bias  of  false  learning;  for  a  firm  con- 
viction, once  established  in  the  mind,  gives  the 
mind  a  fixed  set  in  a  certain  direction.  This  is 
strongly  exemplified  by  the  fact  that  persons  who 
have  been  proselyted  to  a  certain  religious  creed 
can  seldom  be  made  to  change  their  faith. 

We  are  what  our  opinions  are.  Our  opinion 
shapes  our  destiny  to  its  own  bent.  In  short,  a 
man  is  absolutely  at  the  mercy  of  his  opinion. 

We  have  very  little  to  do,  however,  with  the 
shaping  of  our  own  opinion.  That  is  mostly 
shaped  by  others.  We  go  to  church  to  have  our 
'opinion  bent,  or  its  present  bent  stiffened.  We 
attend  a  lecture  and  get  a  new  kink  put  into  our 
opinion;  we  converse  with  our  friends,  and  they 
dent  our  opinion ;  we  read  books  and  newspapers, 
learn  something,  and  are  swerved  in  the  direction 
of  our  learning,  especially  in  the  direction  of 
public  opinion.  Always  and  always,  while  we 
think  that  we  are  shaping  our  own  opinion,  we 
are  having  it  shaped  by  others. 

The  estimable  ladies  of  the  Woman's  Peace 
Party  are  merely  parading  like  sandwich  men,  dis- 
porting a  legend  written  on  a  board  by  the  man 
higher  up,  with  whom  they  believe  it  is  most 
creditable  to  agree. 

At  the  present  time,  the  false  teachings  of  the 
peace-propagandists  have  so  proselyted  public 
opinion  that  every  public  speaker,  aspiring  to 

[241] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

popular  favor,  jfinds  it  easy,  even  with  a  weakling 
voice  and  a  halting  speech,  to  get  his  audience 
with  him,  and  to  win  a  reputation  for  eloquence 
and  wisdom  by  prating  the  bromidial  spielings  of 
the  peace-propagandists. 

A  great  many  men  and  women  in  this  country 
hold  the  same  false  opinion  that  the  ladies  of  the 
Woman's  Peace  Party  hold.  Possibly  something 
besides  the  humiliation  of  this  country  by  war 
may  lead  them  into  the  light  of  understanding. 
War,  however,  will  do  it,  and  by  their  able  co- 
operation with  the  forces  of  the  future  enemies  of 
the  country,  they  are  hastening  the  advent  of  that 
war. 

If  we  were  to  disarm,  as  these  ladies  advise,  war 
would  come  upon  us  with  consternate  suddenness. 
Then,  when  they  saw  the  desolation  and  the  waste ; 
saw  their  homes  in  flames ;  when  they  saw  innocent 
citizens  clumped  in  open  spaces  and  shot  down 
with  machine-guns ;  when  they  saw  little  children, 
lean  as  shadows,  starving  everywhere ;  when  they 
encountered  insult  and  maltreatment  at  every 
turn;  then  all  their  womanhood  would  revolt  and 
rise  up  with  an  altered  mind. 

Like  the  light  that  descended  from  Heaven  on 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  the  light  of  the  truth  would  de- 
scend on  those  ladies  through  the  smoke  of  their 
burning  homes — that  armed  preparedness  against 
such  a  dread  eventuality  as  war  is  the  supreme 
of  virtue,  and  its  neglect  the  worst  of  crimes. 

[242] 


EGO-FANATIC  GOOD  INTENTIONS 

By  their  help  that  war  is  very  likely  to  come, 
and  if  it  does  come,  we  shall  find  them,  as  the 
women  of  England,  ministering  angels  in  the  hos- 
pitals of  the  wounded.  We  shall  find  them  at  the 
recruiting  stations,  urging  enlistment.  We  shall 
find  them  fitting  out  their  sons,  husbands,  and 
brothers  for  the  front.  We  shall  find  them,  as  in 
England,  training  in  the  use  of  arms  as  a  last 
emergency  reserve.  We  shall  find  them,  as  in  Eng- 
land, doing  police  duty,  that  the  city  guardians 
may  go  to  the  front.  As  the  women  of  Carthage 
cut  the  hair  from  their  heads  to  make  bow-strings, 
so  these  very  women  of  the  Peace  Party,  as  the 
women  of  England  are  doing,  as  the  women  of 
Germany  are  doing,  will  sacrifice  their  jewelry, 
and  all  their  most  precious  possessions,  to  supply 
the  sinews  of  war. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that,  because  men 
bear  arms  in  war,  they  are  the  chief  sufferers  in 
war,  or  make  the  chief  sacrifices.  The  sexes  suffer 
equally,  for  to  win  victory  they  make  mutual  and 
equal  sacrifices,  and  in  defeat  they  suffer  mutually 
every  conceivable  and  every  inconceivable  lacera- 
tion of  body,  pride,  and  honor. 

The  supposition  is  erroneous  that  woman  is  less 
brave  or  less  militant  in  war  than  man.  In  times 
of  peace,  when  her  help  is  not  needed  in  the 
sterner  affairs  of  life,  she  may  be  as  gentle  as  a 
dove  and  as  kind  as  a  purring  kitten;  but,  when 
her  help  is  needed  in  stern  affairs,  she  is  never 

[243] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

found  wanting.  When  the  cubs  are  in  danger, 
*'  the  female  of  the  species  is  more  deadly  than 
the  male." 

The  abject  condition  of  Belgian  women  and  chil- 
dren since  the  German  invasion  is  merely  typical 
of  what  women  and  children  must  inevitably  suffer 
at  the  hands  of  invaders.  It  matters  not  whether 
a  country  be  invaded  by  Germans,  Frenchmen,  or 
Englishmen,  or  by  Americans.  The  stern  exi- 
gencies of  war  require  that  the  invaders  shall  bend 
every  energy  and  employ  every  resource  to  the 
attainment  of  the  main  purpose — ^victory.  The  in- 
vaders themselves  are  compelled  to  make  extreme 
sacrifices,  and  to  bear  extreme  suffering  and  priva- 
tion, and  are  not  in  a  mood  to  take  on  more  burden 
or  to  suffer  extra  privations,  and,  above  all,  to 
risk  success,  in  order  to  alleviate  the  suffering  of 
the  enemy's  women  and  children.  Sympathy  and 
mercy,  however,  do  often  lead  them  to  be  far 
kinder  than  would  best  suit  the  demands  of  stern 
necessity. 

It  was  when  Sherman  found  himself  compelled 
to  drive  out  the  civil  inhabitants  of  Atlanta,  to 
prepare  for  his  march  to  the  sea,  that  in  reply  to 
protests  on  behalf  of  the  women  and  children,  he 
made  his  world-famous  declaration,  "War  is  hell; 
and  we  cannot  civilize  it  or  refine  it. ' ' 

The  supreme  duty  of  a  nation  is  to  safeguard 
its  people  from  such  a  crisis  and  such  a  calamity. 
It  is  useless  to  lament  the  miseries  of  our  women 

[244] 


EGO-FANATIC  GOOD  INTENTIONS 

and  children,  after  we  have,  through  neglect  of 
national  defenses,  brought  the  calamities  of  war 
upon  them. 

With  strange  inconsistency,  the  women  of  the 
"Woman's  Peace  Party,  though  they  bemoan  the 
lot  of  the  poor  women  and  children  of  Belgium, 
are  by  their  own  acts  inviting  the  same  calamity 
to  fall  upon  themselves  and  on  their  children. 

Herbert  Spencer  observed  that  individual  life 
is  a  tendency  to  establish  an  equilibrium  between 
internal  and  external  forces.  This  observation 
applies  also  to  the  life  of  social  organizations, 
except  that,  when  applied  to  nations,  it  should  be 
differently  stated,  as  follows — ^the  life  of  a  nation 
is  the  tendency  to  establish  an  equilibrium  be- 
tween internal  forces,  and  also  between  those 
forces  and  external  forces. 

Opposing  forces  separately  tend  toward  insta- 
bility of  equilibrium,  but  collectively,  by  operating 
against  one  another,  they  tend  to  the  establishment 
of  an  equilibrium.  Lidividual  action  in  a  group 
of  individuals  tends  to  heterogeneity,  aggregated 
action  to  homogeneity.  One  of  the  mainsprings 
of  progress  is  the  pertinacity  of  enthusiasts  and 
faddists.  Even  the  self-appointed  ego-fanatic 
moral  reformers  are  often  useful,  because  they 
tend  to  throw  society  out  of  balance.  This  rouses 
the  great  mass  of  the  people  to  inquiry  and  raises 
them  to  a  broader  understanding,  with  the  result 
that,  in  the  end,  pernicious  propagandists,  who 

[245] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

have  overshot  the  mark,  are  brought  back  nearer 
the  mark,  and  the  sane  mass  of  the  people  brought 
nearer  the  mark.  A  fanatic  reformer  sometimes 
injects  dynamic  force  into  a  static  condition.  It 
seems  to  be  a  rational  assumption,  therefore,  that, 
in  all  things  where  organized  feminist  fanaticism 
of  both  men  and  women  is  today  working  evil,  the 
great  body  of  sane  and  normal  men  and  women 
ought  to  exert  their  united  influence  to  the  full  as 
a  stabilizer,  or  equilibrator  of  the  social  organ- 
ization. 


[246] 


CHAPTER  XI 
A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

"  Probably  the  most  curious  feature  of  the  naral  program  is 
the  regularity  with  which  the  sky  clouds  over  as  the  day  for  the 
consideration  of  naval  appropriations  approaches.  Year  after 
year,  after  a  long  spell  of  pleasant  weather,  all  at  once  storm 
clouds  have  drifted  across  the  heavens,  international  relations 
have  become  suddenly  strained,  and  the  whole  land  has  lain  in 
the  shadow  of  an  imoending  conflict.  Fortunately,  the  storm 
blows  over  as  soon  as  the  votes  are  counted,  and  in  the  beauti- 
ful sunlight  which  follows  the  storm,  workmen  are  seen  con- 
structing additional  battleships.  Suspicious  persons  have  oc- 
casionally imagined  they  saw  a  connection  between  the  interna- 
tional weather  and  the  Navy  League." 

Dr.  Charles  E.  Jefferson. 

"  It  is  criminal  that  we  should  expend  vast  sums  on  warships 
and  armament  on  the  advice  of  interested  parties  alone.  ..." 

"  War  scares  are  heard  the  world  over.  The  world  over  they 
are  set  going  by  wicked  men  for  evil  purposes." 

Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  "  War  and  Waste." 

THE  pacifists  have  delved  out  of  the  infinite 
latency  a  very  startling  alleged  truth, 
which  they  are  effulging  in  language  of 
lavish  luminosity,  to  the  effect  that  it  is  necessary 
only  for  a  man  to  have  a  pecuniary  interest  or 
personal  advantage  involved  in  order  to  commit 
any  kind  of  crime.    They  have  discovered  that 

[247] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

room  for  a  motive  establishes  the  motive  and 
proves  the  crime.  They  have  discovered  that 
those  things  which  we  call  integrity  and  honor 
and  conscience  are  no  deterrents  whatsoever  to 
the  commission  of  the  most  heinous  offense 
against  one 's  fellow  men,  so  long  as  there  is  profit 
in  it.  They  believe  that,  if  only  there  is  money 
in  the  game,  an  inventor  or  manufacturer  or  mer- 
chant will  scheme  for  the  commission  of  whole- 
sale poisoning,  maiming,  and  murder.  They  be- 
lieve that  the  inventors  and  manufacturers  of 
guns  necessarily  foster  war  in  order  to  promote 
the  sale  of  their  wares.  They  surmise  that  in- 
ventors and  manufacturers  of  smokeless  powders 
and  high  explosives  are  capable  of  standing  with 
the  ** black  hand,"  capable  of  being  gladdened  at 
the  dynamite  outrage,  at  the  street  riot,  at  the 
slaughter  of  song-birds — anything  that  will  con- 
sume dynamite  or  burn  gunpowder. 

According  to  the  pacifists,  the  principal  lay  of 
makers  of  war-materials  is  to  connive  with  the 
officers  of  the  Army  and  Navy  to  stir  up  interna- 
tional dissension  and  foment  war,  in  order  to  crc:^ 
ate  a  demand  for  their  products.  The  pacifists  be- 
lieve that  army  and  navy  officers  are  only  too 
willing  to  co-operate  in  the  nefarious  business,  be-^ 
eause  war  brings  higher  pay  and  rapid  promotion. 
They  believe  that  it  matters  not  to  these  "inter- 
ested parties ' '  how  many  of  their  countrymen  are 
sacrificed  on  the  firing  line,  or  how  many  widows 

[248] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

and  orphans  are  made.  The  groans  of  the 
wounded  and  dying  on  the  battle-field,  and  the 
lamentations  in  the  desolated  home,  are  music  to 
the  ears  of  those  who  supply  the  war-materials; 
for,  with  every  shot  from  a  rifle,  fifty  grains  of 
gunpowder  are  burned,  while  bullets  enough  miss 
their  mark  to  equal  the  weight  of  each  man  they 
kill.  Consequently,  there  is  substantial  profit  to 
the  cartridge-maker  and  the  gunpowder-manufac- 
turer for  every  man  killed  with  a  rifle  ball. 

But  it  is  in  shrapnel  and  the  ammunition  for' 
the  big  guns  that  the  greatest  profit  lies.  Field- 
guns  fire  away  ammunition  costing  from  ten  to 
twenty  dollars  a  shot,  at  the  rate  of  from  twenty 
to  forty  shots  a  minute.  This  costs  a  lot  of  money. 
At  the  battle  of  Mukden,  in  the  Russo-Japanese 
war,  one  battery  of  eight  guns  fired  11,159  rounds, 
or  1,395  rounds  per  gun.  Think  of  the  expense  of 
that  ammunition,  and  the  profit  to  the  manufac- 
turers !  It  is  estimated  that  when  the  big  naval 
guns  are  fired,  the  cost  of  the  smokeless-powder 
charge,  the  projectile  and  bursting  charge,  to- 
gether with  the  wear  and  tear  of  the  gun,  amounts 
to  more  than  $2,000  a  shot,  and  the  damage  done 
to  a  warship  hit  may  be  many  millions. 

Look  at  it  any  way  you  will,  war,  according  to 
the  pacifist  notion,  is  a  real  Klondike  for  manu- 
facturers of  war-materials.  The  peace  sophists 
have  been  able  to  put  two  and  two  together,  with 
the  conclusions  that  such  an  opportunity  for  profit 

[249] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

is  too  strong  for  human  nature  to  resist,  and  that, 
as  they  have  found  room  for  the  motive,  they  have 
proved  the  crime. 

Of  course,  their  accusation  is  a  pretty  severe 
arraignment  of  human  nature,  after  all  these 
years  of  civilization  and  Christian  enlightenment. 

It  is  strange  how  human  nature  can  have  im- 
proved so  much  lately,  as  claimed  by  the  pacifists, 
and  how  the  spirit  of  brotherhood  and  good-will 
can  have  suddenly  become  so  dominant  that  the 
peoples  of  the  earth  now  despise  war,  and  are  so 
afflicted  with  the  horrors  of  it  that,  just  as  soon 
as  the  great  European  War  is  over,  they  are  not 
going  to  fight  any  more,  while  still  the  makers  of 
war-materials  remain  in  the  primitive  savagery 
of  the  stone  age.  It  seems  to  me  that,  if  human 
nature  has  so  improved  as  to  be  an  efficient  bar 
to  a  nation  against  waging  war  for  plunder,  re- 
gardless of  the  advantage  and  the  profit,  it  ought 
also  to  be  a  similar  bar  to  inventors  and  manu- 
facturers of  war-materials,  and  to  army  and  navy 
officers,  against  precipitating  war  for  pecuniary 
or  personal  advantage. 

But,  according  to  pacifist  reasoning,  those  * 'in- 
terested parties"  are  more  endowed  with  the 
spirit  of  the  hyena  than  with  the  spirit  of  brother- 
hood. Perhaps,  however,  the  manufacturers  of 
war-materials,  and  army  and  navy  officers,  were 
not  home  when  the  great  improvement  in  human 
nature  knocked  at  their  door. 

[  250  ] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

If  considerations  of  mere  personal  profit  are 
sufficient  to  make  the  best  of  us  foster  war,  which 
the  peace  fanatics  esteem  wholesale  murder,  it  is 
strange  that  the  inventors  and  manufacturers  of 
drugs  and  medicines,  the  proprietors  of  drug- 
stores, and  the  medical  profession  and  under- 
takers, do  not  form  a  league  and  co-operate  in 
spreading  infectious  diseases,  in  order  to  create 
a  greater  demand  for  their  wares  and  for  their 
services. 

Of  course,  the  reason  may  be  that  they  have  not 
yet  thought  of  it,  and  it  may  be  wrong  for  me  to 
suggest  the  thing  to  them.  Still,  it  is  queer  that 
it  has  not  been  suggested  to  them  by  what  the 
pacifists  have  said  concerning  the  conduct  of  our 
army  and  navy  officers  and  of  the  inventors  and 
manufacturers  of  war-materials. 

Let  us  see  what  the  facts  actually  are : 

The  inventors  and  manufacturers  of  war-ma- 
terials, and  our  army  and  navy  officers,  by  virtue 
of  the  study  and  experience  that  qualify  them  for 
their  business  or  profession  better  than  others, 
are  also  qualified  better  than  others  to  judge  what 
are  our  actual  needs  for  national  defense. 

If  the  manufacturers  of  war-materials,  and  our 
army  and  navy  men,  are  to  be  convicted  of  inciting 
war  on  the  evidence  that  by  so  doing  they  create 
a  demand  for  their  services,  then  necessarily 
others  benefited  by  a  like  demand  may  be  con- 
victed on  the  same  evidence. 

[251] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  himself  is  the  greatest  of 
all  American  armorers.  He  it  was  who  intro- 
duced the  Bessemer  steel  process  into  the  United 
States,  from  which  all  our  gun-makers  and  all  our 
armament-makers  have  greatly  benefited.  It  is 
his  name  and  that  of  Herr  Krupp  which  Neptune 
reads  graven  in  the  walls  of  fighting-ships.  He 
still  draws  an  income  from  his  interests  in  the 
great  armor-making  steel  corporation — an  annual 
income  big  enough  to  pay  the  combined  salaries 
of  all  the  four  thousand  officers  of  the  United 
States  Army. 

Truly,  if  the  discovery  of  room  for  a  motive 
proves  both  the  motive  and  the  crime,  and  is  suf- 
ficient to  convict  these  four  thousand  men  of  being 
willing  to  sell  their  souls  in  order  to  raise  their 
salaries  a  few  dollars,  Mr.  Carnegie  himself  is  at 
least  open  to  suspicion. 

Likewise,  the  varied  and  many  institutions — 
incubators  of  the  doves  of  peace — born  of  the 
great  armor-maker's  generosity,  which  continue 
to  be  his  beneficiaries,  cannot  escape  the  suspicion 
that  taints  their  pedigree. 

Even  the  leading  man — the  principal  star  on 
the  stage  where  Uncle  Sammy  unter  Alles  is  being 
played — Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  is  paid  from  the 
Carnegie  Peace  Foundation  with  money  equally 
tainted  by  the  sweaty  hands  of  the  grimy  men  who 
are  forging  armor-plate  in  the  Smoky  City. 

But  we  all  know  that  Mr.  Carnegie  is  above  any 
[252] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

such  suspicion.   We  know  that  the  pacifist  method 
of  reasoning  must  be  false. 

The  education  of  our  army  and  navy  officers 
teaches  them  not  alone  military  science,  but  also 
national  devotion  and  personal  honor.  Devotion 
to  duty  is  necessary  in  order  to  keep  them  in  the 
service,  under  the  altogether  inadequate  pay  they 
receive.  The  pay  of  the  American  army  and  navy 
officers  is  smaller,  in  proportion  to  their  knowl- 
edge and  the  value  of  their  services,  than  that  of 
any  other  class  of  men  in  the  country.  If  every 
army  and  navy  officer  should  abandon  the  service 
for  a  position  in  civil  life  when  he  could  get  a 
raise  of  wages  for  so  doing,  there  would  not  be 
a  corporal's  guard  left  in  the  service. 

Whenever  a  public  work  is  placed  in  charge  of 
an  army  or  navy  officer,  there  is  no  sub-rosa 
rake-off,  or  diwy  with  civilian  contractors. 
There  is  absolutely  no  graft  of  any  kind  in  their 
service,  and  the  government  is  sure  of  getting  the 
maximum  amount  of  work  for  the  minimum  cost. 
Not  one  cent  of  graft  has  fallen  upon  the  palms 
either  of  Colonel  Goethals  or  of  any  other  army 
officer  in  the  whole  course  of  construction  of  that 
mighty  work — the  Panama  Canal.  New  York  City 
tried  to  get  Colonel  Goethals  as  Police  Commis- 
sioner. He  has  received  scores  of  offers  of  posi- 
tions in  civil  life  at  many  times  his  present  salary, 
because  of  the  military  capacity  and  honor  that 
make  the  Goethals  sort  of  service  very  valuable. 

[253] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

I  know  many  army  and  navy  men  intimately. 
I  have  had  opportunities  of  hearing  their  off- 
guard  conversations  and  interchange  of  ideas  on 
all  manner  of  subjects,  and  have  thereby  been  en- 
abled to  see  their  character  revealed  to  the  naked 
soul,  and  I  have  never  yet  discovered  any  other 
attitude  or  tendency  among  them  than  the  emula- 
tion of  exactly  that  type  of  honor,  efficiency,  and 
manhood  which  is  Colonel  Goethals '. 

I  cannot  award  this  same  high  praise  to  the 
politicians  I  have  known. 

An  army  or  navy  officer  always  drives  just  as 
close  a  bargain  as  he  can  on  behalf  of  the  govern- 
ment when  doing  business  with  civilians,  although 
the  economics  of  the  transaction  is  of  no  personal 
concern  to  him. 

When  a  politician  makes  a  bargain,  his  first  con- 
sideration is:  '* Where  do  I  come  in?"  His  next 
consideration  is:  ''Where  does  the  party  come 
in?"  Duty  to  the  government  is  a  minor  consid- 
eration. 

It  is  the  demand  for  a  thing  that  leads  to  its 
invention,  just  as  it  is  the  demand  for  a  thing  that 
leads  to  its  manufacture.  The  demand  must  pre- 
cede the  production. 

When  the  inventor  designs  a  gun,  or  invents  a 
new  explosive,  he  does  not  simultaneously  try  to 
invent  ways  and  means  of  creating  a  market.  He 
may,  on  the  contrary,  be  inspired  with  a  spirit 
of  patriotism,  and  feel  that  in  the  event  of  war 

[  254  ] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

his  work  will  be  of  signal  service  to  his  country, 
both  by  killing  his  country's  enemies  and  by  sav- 
ing the  lives  of  his  own  people. 

The  manufacturers  of  war-materials  are  much 
more  likely  to  be  actuated  by  honorable  motives, 
and  to  make  large  sacrifices  from  a  spirit  of  patri- 
otism, than  are  the  manufacturers  of  soap,  agri- 
cultural machinery,  or  automobiles. 

The  builders  of  Ericsson's  Monitor  were  not 
able  to  get  the  government  either  to  approve  or 
to  back  the  enterprise.  They  were,  however,  for- 
tunately inspired  by  a  high  spirit  of  patriotism, 
and  by  a  strong  belief  in  Ericsson's  invention; 
consequently,  they  built  it  at  their  own  expense. 
It  was  completed  just  in  the  nick  of  time.  The 
terrible  Merrimac  appeared  before  the  Monitor 
was  quite  ready.  She  could  laugh  at  forts,  and 
the  projectiles  from  the  guns  of  our  wooden  navy- 
glanced  off  her  mailed  sides  like  raindrops  off  a 
duck's  back.  Whether  she  would  be  able  to  run 
up  the  Potomac  and  bombard  Washington,  was  a 
question  only  of  the  depth  of  water. 

The  little  coterie  of  bureaucrats  in  Washington, 
who  had  ridiculed  the  fantastic  innovation  of 
Ericsson,  were  now  on  Uneasy  Street,  and  sent 
urgent  appeals  for  the  Monitor  to  be  made  ready 
and  sent  to  Hampton  Roads  with  all  speed.  The 
peculiar  craft  did  arrive  on  the  morning  of  the 
second  day  of  the  naval  fight.    The  result  is  one 

[255] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

of  the  good  stories  of  history — a  story  that  has 
never  been  quite  equaled  in  fiction. 

The  Monitor  had  not  yet  been  accepted  by 
the  government  when  she  fought  the  Merrimac; 
she  had  not  yet  received  the  government's  ap- 
proval. 

A  country  Eeuben,  who  saw  a  giraffe  for  the 
first  time  at  a  circus,  looked  the  animal  over,  and, 
finding  that  it  did  not  conform  to  his  ideas  of  what 
an  animal  ought  to  be,  remarked,  ''By  gum,  there 
ain't  no  sich  critter!"  Likewise,  the  naval  ex- 
perts at  Washington  did  not  believe  that  there 
could  be  any  such  fighting-ship.  After  that  fight, 
however,  the  Monitor  was  quickly  purchased,  and 
hurried  orders  were  given  for  more  Monitors. 

The  patriotism  and  pluck  of  the  warship- 
builders  saved  the  country. 

The  pacifists  are  strongly  urging  what  they 
term  the  nationalization  of  all  manufacture  of 
war-materials;  that  is  to  say,  that  all  such  ma- 
terials should  be  made  at  government  plants. 
Their  object  is  to  have  the  work  done  by  disinter- 
ested persons,  who  will  not  be  tempted  to  promote 
war  in  order  to  make  a  market  for  those  materials. 
By  admirable  inconsistency,  the  pacifists  would, 
in  so  doing,  place  the  manufacture  of  war- 
materials  in  the  hands  of  army  and  navy  officers, 
whom  they  pronounce  the  most  pernicious  of  all 
promoters  of  war. 

Before  Congress  acts  upon  the  suggestion  of 
[256] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

the  pacifists  to  nationalize  the  manufacture  of  all 
war-materials,  it  would  be  well  to  see  what  would 
have  happened  in  the  past,  had  the  thing  been 
done  sooner.  We  can  judge  from  that  concerning 
the  advisability  of  adopting  the  measure  now. 

If  it  had  been  adopted  at  the  time  of  the  Civil 
War,  Ericsson's  Monitor  never  would  have  been 
built,  because  its  building  depended  upon  private 
personal  patriotism  and  private  enterprise. 

If  the  measure  had  been  adopted  twenty-five 
years  ago,  then  naturally,  during  that  period,  pri- 
vate invention  and  private  enterprise  would  have 
been  eliminated,  and  the  government  would  not 
have  profited  from  civilian  genius  and  energy. 
Let  us  see,  then,  what  private  invention  and  pri- 
vate enterprise  have  done  for  the  government  for 
the  past  quarter-century,  since  the  advent  of 
smokeless  powder. 

Colonel  E.  G.  Buckner,  vice-president  of  the 
du  Pont  Powder  Company,  in  an  article  in  Har- 
per* s  Weekly,  of  June  27,  1914,  places  the  credit 
for  the  four  most  important  inventions  in  the  de- 
velopment of  smokeless  powder — first,  to  Vieille, 
of  France,  who  produced  gun-cotton;  second,  to 
Mendeleeff,  of  Russia,  who  told  us  how  to  colloid 
it;  third,  to  Francis  G.  du  Pont,  who  eliminated 
danger  in  the  manufacture;  and,  fourth,  to  Hud- 
son Maxim,  who  invented  the  multi-perfo- 
rated grain  that  gave  absolute  control  over  the 
burning. 

[257] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

It  will  be  seen  that  two  of  the  most  important 
steps  in  the  development  of  smokeless  powder 
were  made  by  American  civilian  inventors.  The 
alcohol  replacement  invention  of  Francis  G.  du 
Pont  and  my  o^vn  invention  of  the  multi-per- 
forated grain,  rendered  possible  the  use  of  a  col- 
loid of  pure  nitro-cellulose  as  a  smokeless  cannon- 
powder.  It  would  be  absolutely  impossible  suc- 
cessfully to  make  a  pure  nitro-cellulose  cannon- 
powder  without  these  two  inventions.  If  the 
manufacture  of  smokeless  powder  had  been  na- 
tionalized twenty-five  years  ago,  this  government 
would  not  stand,  as  it  stands  today,  ahead  of  all 
other  governments,  in  the  excellence  of  its  smoke- 
less powder. 

When  the  government  first  ordered  a  pure 
nitro-cellulose  powder,  large  quantities  of  solvents 
were  consumed  in  its  preparation.  Private  manu- 
facturers introduced  new  processes  to  overcome 
this  difficulty,  resulting  in  a  material  reduction  in 
the  cost  of  the  powder,  which  has  already  effected 
a  saving  to  the  government  of  more  than 
$2,000,000. 

It  is  a  peculiarity  of  smokeless  powder  that, 
regardless  of  however  stable  it  may  be  when  first 
made,  it  gradually  begins  to  decompose  after  long 
standing,  which,  until  recently,  necessitated  its  de- 
struction. Several  years  ago,  however,  Mr. 
Francis  I.  du  Pont,  son  of  the  Francis  G.  du  Pont 
above-mentioned,  invented  a  process  for  the  suc- 

[  258  ] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

cessful  reworking  of  smokeless  powder  that  has 
begun  to  decompose,  at  a  mere  fraction  of  the 
original  cost,  making  it  just  as  good  as  ever.  This 
invention  alone  will  hereafter  save  the  govern- 
ment more  than  a  million  dollars  a  year. 

When  the  new  army  rifle  was  developed,  it  was 
found  that  the  smokeless  powder  then  used  by  the 
army,  containing  nitro-glycerin,  was  so  erosive  as 
to  destroy  the  accuracy  of  the  arm  when  only 
1,600  rounds  had  been  fired.  The  government  ob- 
tained from  abroad  some  smokeless  powder,  which 
enabled  3,000  rounds  to  be  fired  before  the  gun 
was  destroyed,  but  after  that  number  of  rounds, 
the  rifling  was  practically  obliterated. 

A  private  manufacturer  invented  a  new  smoke- 
less rifle-powder,  with  process  and  apparatus 
for  its  manufacture.  With  this  powder,  it  is  now 
possible  to  fire  as  high  as  20,000  rounds  before 
the  accuracy  of  the  gun  is  destroyed.  This  inven- 
tion easily  multiplies  the  life  of  the  army  rifle  by 
six.  As  the  army  rifle  will  now  last  six  times  as 
long  by  the  use  of  this  powder  as  it  would  by 
the  use  of  any  other  powder,  the  value  of  the  in- 
vention to  the  government  is  by  far  the  chief  value 
of  the  gun  itself.  Consequently,  it  is  estimated 
that  this  invention  alone  represents  a  value  for 
the  guns  that  the  government  now  has  on  hand 
of  more  than  $15,000,000. 

Not  only  does  our  small-arms  powder  effect  a 
great  saving  in  the  wear  and  tear  of  our  shoulder- 

[259] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

rifles,  but  also  onr  pure  nitro-cellulose  cannon- 
powder  effects  a  similar  saving  in  the  life  of  our 
big  guns.  Our  big  guns,  using  pure  nitro-cellulose 
powder,  last,  with  equal  accuracy,  more  than  twice 
as  long  as  British  guns,  which  use  cordite. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  considera- 
tions and  figures  that  private  genius  and  private 
enterprise  alone  have  saved  the  government  very 
many  millions  of  dollars.  Of  course,  it  may  be 
argued  that,  since  guns  and  ammunition  and  all 
kinds  of  military  implements  and  engines  have 
been  perfected,  there  is  not  now  room  for  civilian 
inventors  to  be  so  useful  to  the  government  during 
the  next  twenty-five  years  as  they  have  been  in 
the  past  twenty-five. 

A  similar  attitude  of  the  average  mind  would 
have  existed  had  the  same  question  been  raised 
twenty-five  years  ago.  When  our  Patent  Office 
was  first  established,  the  Commissioner  of  Patents 
predicted  that  within  fifty  years  everything  pos- 
sible of  invention  would  have  been  invented  and 
that  then  the  Patent  Office  would  have  to  be  abol- 
ished for  lack  of  business.  The  number  of  inven- 
tions received  by  the  Patent  Office,  however,  has 
rapidly  increased,  and  is  still  rapidly  increasing. 
More  inventions  are  received  now  each  year  at 
the  Patent  Office  than  were  received  during  the 
first  fifty  years  of  its  existence.  The  reason  for 
this  is  that  every  invention,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  creates  a  demand  for  other  inventions. 

[260] 


'A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

The  inventor  is  still  working  in  virgin  soil,  and 
the  room  for  invention  is  infinite. 

If  the  manufacture  of  war-materials  were  to  be 
nationalized,  not  only  would  the  government  rob 
itself  of  the  aid  of  large  quasi-government  manu- 
factories, but  also'  it  would  rob  itself  of  the  bene- 
fits of  the  inventive  genius  of  the  whole  people. 
The  value  of  that  genius  may  be  approximated 
by  recalling  what  citizen  inventions  have  done 
since  the  outbreak  of  the  American  Civil 
War. 

Breech-loading  guns  of  all  kinds,  the  percussion 
cap,  cartridges  for  small-arms,  fixed  ammunition 
for  quick-firing  guns,  the  breech  mechanism  for 
all  guns,  the  built-up  gun,  the  great  improvements 
in  steel  manufacture,  the  revolving  turret  and  the 
Monitor  type  of  fighting-ship,  the  steam  turbine, 
the  internal-combustion  engine,  all  of  the  great 
inventions  in  smokeless  powders  and  high  ex- 
plosives, and  their  adaptability  to  use  in  ordnance, 
the  submarine  torpedo-boat,  the  self-propelled  tor- 
pedo, the  aeroplane  and  the  dirigible,  and  any 
number  of  other  inventions  indispensable  to  mod- 
ern warfare,  have  been  the  invention  of  civilians. 
Of  course,  army  and  navy  officers  have  invented 
a  great  many  important  things  themselves,  and 
have  rendered  great  service  in  the  development 
of  civilian  inventions.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  army  and  navy  officers  constitute  but  a  very 
small  part  of  the  population.    Even  were  army 

[261] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

and  navy  men  ten  times  more  proficient  in  the 
invention  of  war-materials  than  civilian  inventors, 
the  number  and  value  of  civilian  naval  and  mili- 
tary inventions  would  preponderate  enormously 
over  those  of  government  officers. 

We  have  been  assured  all  along  by  the  peace 
sophists  that,  if  war  should  come,  the  great  Amer- 
ican genius  would  rise  to  the  occasion  and  spring 
to  our  rescue,  with  all  manner  of  destructive  con- 
trivances, capable  of  annihilating  armies  and 
sweeping  fleets  of  fighting-ships  off  the  seas. 

If  the  beautiful  nationalization  plan  of  the  peace 
sophists,  however,  were  to  be  carried  out,  the 
great  American  genius  would  get  no  opportunity 
to  fructify  the  prophesied  militant  cataclysmic 
ogerism  to  the  discomfiture  of  our  enemies. 

No  other  government  has  nationalized  the  man- 
ufacture of  armaments  and  war-materials  to  the 
exclusion  of  private  manufacturers.  On  the  con- 
trary, other  governments  strongly  encourage  pri- 
vate manufacture,  for  they  realize  the  vast  impor- 
tance of  drawing  upon  the  inventive  genius  of  the 
whole  people,  and  of  enlisting  private  energy,  pri- 
vate enterprise,  and  private  capital  in  government 
work. 

The  French  government  for  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  has  made  all  its  own  gunpowder,  but 
its  chief  gun-works  are  private  enterprises.  Pos- 
sibly, if  the  French  smokeless  powder  had  been 
perfected  by  private  enterprise  to  meet  govern- 

[262] 


A  DANGEROUS  CRIMINAL  CLASS? 

ment  requirements,  those  requirements  would 
have  been  more  exacting  with  private  manufac- 
turers than  with  government  manufacturers,  and 
the  battleships  Jena  and  La  Liberie  would  not 
have  been  blown  up  by  the  spontaneous  combus- 
tion of  bad  gunpowder.  If  this  government  were 
to  nationalize  the  manufacture  of  its  war-materi- 
als, we  know,  by  what  has  been  done  in  the  past, 
through  private  enterprise  and  private  inventive 
genius,  that  the  government  would  suffer  enor- 
mously. 

In  this  era  of  Congressional  investigations,  it 
would  be  well  to  have  a  government  inquiry  made 
as  to  whether  or  not  there  should  be  a  new  classi- 
fication of  acts  of  treason.  It  should  be  inquired 
whether  or  not,  in  time  of  peace,  public  preach- 
ments should  be  allowed  advocating  the  disband- 
ing of  our  Army  and  the  destruction  of  our  Navy 
— acts  which  in  time  of  war  might  be  interpreted 
as  treason,  and  the  offenders  backed  up  against  a 
wall  and  shot.  It  should  be  inquired  whether  or 
not  foreign  emissaries,  and  possibly  spies,  have 
not  for  years  been  collaborating  with  American 
advocates  of  disarmament.  It  should  be  inquired 
whether  or  not  the  Washington  lobby  that  has 
been  operating  against  governmental  appropria- 
tions for  the  Army  and  Navy,  has  not  received 
foreign  support.  If  these  things  have  not  been 
done  by  representatives  of  foreign  countries,  with 
such  a  wide-open  opportunity,  then  the  diplomats 

[  263  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

and  strategists  of  foreign  nations  ought  to  be  sent 
to  a  kindergarten  for  instruction.  Could  anything 
be  more  likely  than  that  foreign  Powers  should 
possess  the  sagacity  to  grasp  such  an  opportunity 
to  weaken  our  defenses  ? 


1 264  ] 


CHAPTER  Xn 

THE  GOOD  AND  EVH.  OF  PEACE 
AND  OF  WAR 

"All  states  are  in  perpetual  war  with  all.  For  that  which  we 
call  peace  is  no  more  than  merely  a  name,  whilst  in  reality  Nature 
has  set  all  communities  in  an  unproclaimed  but  everlasting  war 
against  each  other."  Plato. 

SO  much  has  been  said  based  on  ignorance  and 
false  premise  about  the  good  and  evil  of 
war,  and  the  good  and  evil  of  peace,  that  a 
few  cold,  relevant  facts  will  not  be  out  of  place 
here. 

In  stating  these  facts,  the  writer  is  standing 
neither  as  sponsor  for  war  nor  as  sponsor  for 
peace.  He  is  not  posing  as  a  judge  qualified  to 
pass  sentence  on  peace  or  on  war,  but  merely  as 
one  who  understands  the  subject  sufficiently  to 
throw  some  new  light  upon  it.  In  bearing  witness 
to  the  cruelty  and  mercilessness  of  Nature,  the 
writer  assumes  no  responsibility  for  what  Nature 
has  done ;  he  was  not  consulted.  In  bearing  wit- 
ness to  the  evils  and  benefits  of  war,  and  the  evils 
and  benefits  of  peace,  the  writer  does  not  thereby 
either  palliate  the  evils,  or  stand  responsible  for 

[265] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

them;  neither  does  he  assume  credit  for  their 
benefits  and  blessings.  He  realizes,  however,  that 
the  bearer  of  bad  tidings  is  associated  with  the  ill- 
feeling  they  inspire,  although  he  may  be  wholly 
innocent  of  the  ill. 

While  too  much  stress  cannot  be  laid  upon  the 
horrors  of  war  and  the  individual  suffering  in- 
curred thereby,  still  it  is  not  just  to  lay  to  the 
account  of  war  or  militarism  every  ill  that  flesh  is 
heir  to,  as  is  done  by  many  of  the  pacifi-maniacs. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  would  be  as  justifiable  to 
attack  peace  because  of  the  evils  that  develop  in 
times  of  peace.  We  do  not,  however,  on  that  ac- 
count conceive  peace  to  be  a  misfortune,  but  a 
blessing. 

While  our  pacifists  promote  war  by  their  teach- 
ings, they  declaim  against  war  and  picture  its 
horrors  and  calamitous  results.  One  would  natu- 
rally suppose  that,  appreciating  what  a  terrible 
thing  war  is,  they  would  take  the  most  scientific 
and  dependable  means  of  safeguarding  this  coun- 
try against  such  a  calamity;  but,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  they  are  doing  everything  in  their  power  to 
abolish  the  one  means  that  can  safeguard  us 
against  war.  With  consistent  inconsistency,  they 
place  the  blame  for  war  on  the  advocates  of  ade- 
quate armaments — the  true  peace-advocates  and 
peace-makers  and  enemies  of  war,  who  are  fore- 
fending  us  against  war.  The  advocacy  of  arma- 
ments is  construed  by  them  as  the  advocacy  of 

[266] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

war;  measures  for  peace  are  confounded  with 
measures  for  breaching  the  peace. 

A  curious  phase  of  the  matter  is  that  many- 
friends  of  armaments  themselves  make  a  similar 
mistake,  and  think  that  in  defending  armaments 
they  are  called  upon  to  defend  war  also.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  war  has  no  defense,  except  as  a 
last  resort.  But  when  there  is  no  other  way,  and 
when  the  maintenance  of  peace  would  be  a  greater 
calamity  than  war,  then  war  is  to  be  recommended 
as  the  lesser  evil.  It  is,  nevertheless,  undeniably 
an  evil,  though  a  necessary  one,  just  as  a  surgical 
operation  is  a  necessary  evil — but  one  which,  if 
successful,  results  in  such  good  as  far  to  outweigh 
the  evil. 

The  peace  sophists  tell  us  that  there  has  never 
been  a  good  war  or  a  bad  peace;  that  always  in 
war  the  best  specimens  of  manhood  have  been 
slain,  leaving  the  weak  and  unfit  for  breeding  pur- 
poses. They  tell  us  that  the  Napoleonic  wars  low- 
ered the  stature  of  the  entire  French  nation  by 
two  inches.  They  tell  us  also  that  during  all  past 
ages  war  for  plunder  has  been  the  principal  busi- 
ness of  mankind. 

The  following  arraignment  of  war  by  General 
Hiram  M.  Chittenden  is  a  very  fair  sample  of  this 
method  of  reasoning : 

''Both  in  its  restriction  upon  marriage  and  in 
its  destruction  of  life  war  thus  destroys  the  most 

[267] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

precious  seed  and  leaves  the  inferior  from  which 
to  propagate.  In  proportion  as  wars  are  long  con- 
tinued, and  draw  heavily  upon  the  population, 
these  deleterious  effects  are  apparent.  The  cam- 
paigns of  Napoleon  were  a  mighty  drain  upon  the 
vigor  of  the  French  people.  It  has  been  held  that 
the  average  stature  of  the  French  was  thereby 
diminished  by  more  than  an  inch.  Hotv  much 
their  intellectual  and  moral  stature  was  shrunken 
by  that  debauchery  of  crime,  who  can  say?  The 
decadence  of  the  Roman  people  was  due  more  to 
the  waste  of  its  best  blood  in  war  than  to  the 
causes  commonly  accepted.  War  reverses  the 
process  of  natural  selection  and,  instead  of  pro- 
ducing the  survival  of  the  fittest,  produces  the 
survival  of  the  most  unfit.'' 

According  to  statistics  of  the  pacifists,  from  the 
year  1496  b.c.  to  the  year  1861  a.d. — a  period  of 
3,357  years — there  were  227  years  of  peace  and 
3,130  years  of  war — thirteen  years  of  war  for 
every  year  of  peace.  Now,  if  what  we  are  told 
about  the  degenerative  effects  of  war  is  true,  since 
we  know  that  war  has  been  prevalent  in  all  ages, 
the  natural  conclusion  is,  what  a  lot  of  rapscal- 
lions we  must  be !  If  war,  instead  of  tending  to 
secure  the  survival  of  the  fit,  secures  the  survival 
of  the  unfit,  then  after  a  thousand  centuries  of 
strife  we  must  be  signally  unfit. 

The  trouble  with  such  statistics  is  that,  instead 
[268] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

of  leading  us  toward  the  truth,  they  lead  us  into 
error.  It  may  be  perfectly  true  that  for  every 
year  of  general  peace  there  have  been  thirteen 
years  when  there  was  a  war  somewhere  on  the 
earth;  but  this  does  not  imply  in  the  least  that 
peace  was  not  more  general  than  was  war,  even 
during  those  thirteen  years  when  there  was  a 
war.  We  must  remember  that  the  history  of  na- 
tions does  not  tell  us  much  about  the  affairs  of 
the  people  in  times  of  peace ;  it  is  their  wars  that 
have  made  history. 

As  we  look  back  through  time  at  the  large  num- 
ber of  wars,  we  clump  them  together  in  per- 
spective. We  place  the  wars,  as  it  were,  all  on 
the  map  at  once,  instead  of  placing  them  years 
and  centuries  apart. 

Just  as  there  is  always  in  human  life  more  joy 
than  sorrow,  more  pleasure  than  pain,  more  good 
than  ill;  so,  in  the  history  of  the  world,  there 
has  been  more  of  peace  and  prosperity  than  there 
has  been  of  war  and  calamity. 

John  Ruskin  possessed  the  rare  ability  to  per- 
ceive truth  that  pointed  one  way,  while  his  feel- 
ings pointed  in  the  opposite  direction.  Although 
he  had  an  emotional  nature  and  a  highly  artistic 
temperament,  he  was  still  a  man  of  so  broad  views, 
with  so  comprehensive  a  mind  at  the  other  end  of 
the  optic  nerve,  that  he  could  ratiocinate  in  spite 
of  his  emotions.  The  following  is  what  he  had 
to  say  on  war : 

[269] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

*'All  the  pure  and  noble  arts  of  peace  are 
founded  on  war;  no  great  art  ever  rose  on  earth 
hut  among  a  nation  of  soldiers.  There  is  no  great 
art  possible  to  a  nation  but  that  which  is  based  on 
battle.  When  I  tell  you  that  war  is  the  foundation 
of  all  the  arts,  I  mean  also  that  it  is  the  founda- 
tion of  all  the  high  virtues  and  faculties  of  men. 
It  was  very  strange  for  me  to  discover  this,  and 
very  dreadful,  but  I  saw  it  to  be  quite  an  undeni- 
able fact.  The  common  notion  that  peace  and  the 
virtues  of  civil  life  flourished  together  I  found  to 
be  utterly  untenable.  Peace  and  the  vices  of  civil 
life  only  flourish  together.  We  talk  of  peace  and 
learning,  of  peace  and  plenty,  of  peace  and  civiliza- 
tion; but  I  found  that  these  are  not  the  words  that 
the  Muse  of  History  coupled  together:  that  on  her 
lips  the  words  were  peace  and  sensuality,  peace 
and  selfishness,  peace  and  death.  I  found  in  brief 
that  all  great  nations  learned  their  truth  of  word 
and  strength  of  thought  in  war;  that  they  were 
nourished  in  war  and  wasted  in  peace;  taught  by 
war  and  deceived  by  peace;  trained  by  war  and  be- 
trayed by  peace;  in  a  word,  that  they  were  born  in 
war  and  expired  in  peace." 

We  must  not  conclude,  from  the  above  quota- 
tion from  Euskin,  that  he  was  an  advocate  of 
brutality  versus  humanity,  for  he  was  not.  The 
thought  he  meant  to  convey  was  simply  this — that 
only  a  supreme  trial,  a  supreme  responsibility, 

[270] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

where  country,  life  itself,  and  that  which  is  dearer 
than  life — home — are  staked  on  the  issue,  can 
bring  out  the  highest  virtues.  The  struggle  for  in- 
alienable human  rights,  whose  observance  is  free- 
dom, has  been  the  greatest  influence  to  stimulate 
the  genius  and  the  virtues  of  men,  and  these  things 
have  been  accomplished,  and  could  only  have  been 
accomplished,  by  war. 

The  humanity  of  Euskin  is  well  brought  out  in 
the  following  quotation : 

"...  Depend  upon  it,  all  work  must  he  done  at 
last,  not  in  a  disorderly ,  scrambling ,  doggish  way, 
hut  in  an  ordered,  soldierly,  human  way — a  law- 
ful or  *loyaV  way.  Men  are  enlisted  for  the  labor 
that  hills — the  labor  of  war:  they  are  counted, 
trained,  fed,  dressed,  and  praised  for  that.  Teach 
the  plough  exercise  as  carefully  as  you  do  the 
sword  exercise,  and  let  the  officers  of  troops  of  life 
be  held  as  much  gentlemen  as  the  officers  of 
troops  of  death;  and  all  is  done:  but  neither  this, 
nor  any  other  right  thing,  can  be  accomplished — 
you  can't  even  see  your  way  to  it — unless,  first  of 
all,  both  servant  and  master  are  resolved  that, 
come  what  will  of  it,  they  will  do  each  other  jus- 
tice." 

Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  held  the  same  opinion 
about  war  as  that  held  by  John  Euskin.  He 
quoted  and  approved  the  old  Greek,  Heraclitus, 

[271] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

who  said, '  *  War  is  the  father  of  all  things. ' '  After 
quoting  this  expression,  Emerson  said,  "We  of 
this  day  can  repeat  it  as  a  political  and  social 
truth."  Also,  he  said,  ''War  passes  the  power  of 
all  chemical  solvents,  breaking  up  the  old  co- 
hesions, and  allowing  the  atoms  of  society  to  take 
a  new  order." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  social  order,  in  time  of 
peace,  like  a  cultivated  field,  settles  and  solidifies, 
and  it  must  be  broken  down  into  subsoil,  to  sup- 
port a  new  and  vigorous  growth.  The  breaking  by 
plough  and  dynamite,  uprooting  and  submerging 
all  undesirable  growth,  is  rewarded  by  healthy  and 
vigorous  crops  of  a  desirable  growth. 

The  very  privations  that  have  to  be  endured  by 
large  numbers  of  persons  during  a  great  war, 
stimulate  economy,  invention,  and  extraordinary 
endeavor,  and  serve  to  teach  many  useful  lessons 
and  to  impart  valuable  experiential  knowledge, 
which  is  applied  both  during  the  war,  and,  with 
greater  advantage,  when  the  war  is  over.  When  a 
country  is  at  war,  all  its  industries  are  not  ren- 
dered stagnant  or  idle,  but  many  of  them  are 
stimulated  to  extraordinary  eifort  when  cut  off 
from  import  by  blockade. 

The  legend  about  the  stature  of  the  French  na- 
tion being  lowered  two  inches  as  a  result  of  kill- 
ing off  so  many  of  the  best  men  of  France  dur- 
ing the  Napoleonic  wars,  is  a  very  plausible  one, 

[272] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

and  one  that  has  been  made  great  use  of  by  the 
pacifists.  But  no  one  has  thought  to  inquire 
whether  or  not,  during  the  past  century,  the  aver- 
age stature  of  the  Spaniards  and  the  Italians  also 
has  been  lowered.  Perhaps,  if  we  should  inquire, 
we  might  learn  that  the  color  of  the  hair  and  eyes 
and  skin  of  the  French  had  somewhat  darkened 
during  that  period.  We  might  learn  the  truth 
that  the  effect  upon  the  stature  and  the  color  of 
the  eyes  and  skin  and  hair  was  mainly  due  to  an- 
other kind  of  warfare — that  of  the  southern  blood 
of  the  Latin  against  the  blood  of  the  blond  Norse- 
man. We  might  learn  that  in  Italy,  Spain,  and 
France,  the  posterity  of  the  Norse  giants,  who 
long  ago  overran  and  conquered  those  countries, 
did  not  thrive  well  there,  but  slowly  died  down. 
We  might  learn  that  in  those  lands  the  blood  of 
the  blond  is  gradually  overcome  by  the  blood  of 
the  brunette;  and  that,  as  the  blond  races  are 
larger  in  stature,  the  stature  of  the  mixed  Latin 
races  is  lowered  in  proportion  to  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  blond  type.  The  ancient  Roman  was 
much  shorter  in  stature  than  even  the  present 
Italian  or  Frenchman. 

Warfare  has  always  subjected  the  weak,  the 
puny,  the  poor,  the  iU,  the  indigent,  and  the  incom- 
petent to  privations,  trials,  and  strains  of  such 
severity  that  they  have  died  in  large  numbers. 
They  have  not  been  so  able  as  normal  persons  to 
escape  the  sword  and  to  resist  famine  and  disease ; 

[  273  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

consequently,  fewer  of  them  have  survived  than 
of  the  more  fit. 

It  is,  however,  argued  by  the  peace  sophists, 
that  in  modern  warfare  only  the  most  able-bodied 
men  are  selected  for  military  duty,  and  also  that 
the  weak  and  unfit  who  remain  at  home  are  not 
subjected  to  the  same  exterminating  influences  as 
formerly. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  comparing  the  results  of 
war  today  with  those  in  former  years,  we  find 
the  percentage  of  deaths  among  the  incompetent 
stay-at-homes  far  larger  than  among  the  soldiers 
at  the  front. 

It  is  true  that  medical  science  secures  the  sur- 
vival of  a  much  larger  percentage  of  stay-at-home 
incompetents  than  in  former  years,  but  medical 
science  saves  also  a  much  larger  proportion  of 
those  injured  in  battle  than  formerly,  so  that  the 
ratio  of  survival  between  the  fit  and  the  incom- 
petent is  today  in  favor  of  the  fit.  The  conditions 
that  tend  to  secure  the  survival  of  the  fittest  are 
even  more  effective  today  than  they  were  in  old- 
time  wars. 

The  unpleasant  truth  should  be  realized  that  in- 
vading armies  must,  with  other  luxuries,  have 
women.  As  a  result,  they  leave  a  large  progeny — 
wrens  in  the  nests  of  the  doves  of  peace.  Hence, 
inasmuch  as  soldiers  are  the  pick  of  the  manhood 
of  their  country,  they  are  likely  to  do  about  as 
much  toward  securing  the  survival  of  the  fit  in  an 

[  274  ] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

enemy's  country  as  they  would  have  in  their  own 
country. 

There  is  another  very  important  consideration, 
which  is  that  war  is  a  great  mixer  of  races,  and 
that  usually  mixed  types  benefit  enormously  from 
their  compound  blood. 

Furthermore,  the  mingling  of  races  and  peoples 
has  in  all  times  served  greatly  to  spread  knowl- 
edge of  one  another,  and  they  have  always  profited 
largely  from  the  mingled  knowledge.  Soldiers 
visiting  distant  lands  have  brought  home  acquaint- 
ance with  new  arts  and  sciences  and  broader  ideas 
of  international  usefulness.  The  soldiers  of  the 
North,  who  marched  with  Sherman  through 
Georgia  to  the  sea,  returned  years  afterward  and 
built  cotton  mills,  iron  foundries,  and  machine- 
shops  all  over  the  South,  and  stimulated  the  South 
with  Northern  energy  and  Northern  capital. 

We  know  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  are 
constantly  growing  more  fit;  consequently,  we 
know  that  they  cannot  be  growing  constantly  more 
unfit,  due  to  the  degenerative  influence  of  war. 
The  history  of  nations  is  a  history  of  wars ;  conse- 
quently wfe  know  as  untrue  the  contention  of  the 
peace  sophists  that  war  secures  the  survival  of 
the  unfit.  We  know  that  exactly  the  opposite  must 
be  true;  that  war  secures  the  survival  of  the 
fit. 

There  is  yet  another  thing  of  which  the  peace 
sophists  have  never  thought,  and  could  not  be 

[275] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

expected  to  think — ^the  tremendous  self-saving 
potentiality  of  the  race. 

As  I  have  pointed  out  elsewhere,  Nature  seems 
to  care  little  for  individuals,  but  everything  for 
a  race  or  species ;  consequently,  Nature  has  fore- 
fended  herself  by  very  ample  measures  to  insure 
the  survival  of  the  fit. 

If  every  able-bodied  man  in  the  world  today 
were  to  be  slain,  and  only  the  weak  and  puny  left, 
although  the  injury  would  be  incalculable  and 
would  make  the  whole  race  stagger,  still  the  next 
generation  of  men  would  be  almost  as  able-bodied 
and  as  fit  as  the  present  generation.  Let  us  see 
why:  It  is  because  of  that  great  potentiality — 
atavism.  Children  inherit  not  only  directly  from 
their  parents,  but  their  inheritance  harks  back  to 
grandfather,  great-grandfather,  and  even  to  re- 
mote ancestry. 

Just  as  a  stream  of  water  burdened  with  im- 
purities is  self -purifying  when  it  suns  itself  on  the 
bright  pebbles  and  on  grass  and  moss  that  web  and 
tangle  it,  so  life  is  self -purifying  and  self-regen- 
erative. Nature  is  constantly  reaching  higher  and 
higher.  The  acquired  characteristics  of  parents 
tend  to  become  instinctive  in  their  children.  In- 
stinct is  largely  inherited  experience. 

Nature  strives  to  protect  herself  against  degen- 
eracy. Though  bad  conduct  on  the  part  of  parents 
harmfully  affects  the  child,  yet  such  influences  are 
less  potent  than  those  that  are  regenerative.    If 

[276] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

this  were  not  true,  Nature 's  ends  would  not  be  so 
well  secured. 

There  is  in  all  animal  organisms  a  certain  innate 
power  of  resistance  to  germs  of  disease,  and  there 
is  likewise  in  man  a  similar  po^er  of  resistance 
to  degeneracy. 

The  forces  that  operate  to  protect  the  individual 
operate  also  to  shield  the  species  by  affording  pro- 
tection against  evil  inheritance. 

Abnormal  types  are  not  always  representative 
of  diseased  or  degenerate  conditions;  other  con- 
siderations must  be  weighed.  Even  some  crimi- 
nals may  be  atavic  examples  of  a  class  of  indi- 
viduals who  were  better  suited  to  live  under  the 
savage  conditions  that  existed  many  generations 
ago. 

Nature  has  resources  for  her  protection  far  be- 
yond our  ken.  Some  of  them  have,  by  our  inquiry, 
been  discovered.  We  have  discovered  that  not 
only  do  we  immunize  ourselves  to  withstand  re- 
peated attacks  from  the  same  disease,  but  also  our 
children  to  some  extent  inherit  that  immunity. 

When  syphilis,  the  most  abominable  disease  that 
ever  afflicted  mankind,  was  brought  to  Europe  by 
the  sailors  of  Columbus,  the  Europeans,  possess- 
ing no  immunity  against  it,  died  by  hundreds  of 
thousands.  It  afflicted  equally  all  classes,  from 
peasant  to  king.  This  disease  among  the  West  In- 
dian tribes  was  slow-moving,  and  comparatively 
mild;  but  it  became  exceedingly  virulent,  rapid, 

[277] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

and  almost  always  fatal,  in  the  blood  of  the  un- 
immunized  people  of  the  Old  World.  This  dis- 
ease alone  has  been  more  harmful  to  the  human 
race  than  all  the  wars  of  the  world  since  the  dawn 
of  human  history. 

Although  today  the  Old-World  races  have  ac- 
quired considerable  immunity  to  that  affliction  and 
although  science  has  discovered  a  rational  and 
comparatively  successful  treatment,  it  is  still  the 
greatest  single  degenerative  influence  with  which 
the  race  has  to  contend.  Its  evil  potency  is  greatly 
enhanced  by  the  facility  with  which  it  weds  al- 
coholism, and  breeds  tuberculosis,  cancer,  and 
paranoia. 

The  old  pioneers  sowed  the  western  continent 
and  the  islands  of  the  sea  with  the  germs  of  small- 
pox and  measles.  Smallpox,  terrible  anywhere, 
was  tenfold  more  so  with  the  newly  discovered 
peoples.  Measles  was  more  fatal  with  the  Indians 
than  smallpox  with  the  Europeans.  Only  re- 
cently, in  Alaska,  whole  communities  have  been 
wiped  out  by  the  measles.  Even  chicken-pox, 
harmless  with  us,  was  nearly  always  fatal  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Pacific  Islands. 

The  races,  however,  gradually  but  surely, 
developed  immunity,  and  the  great  world-scourges 
are  now  largely  robbed  of  their  terrors.  Similarly 
has  mankind  developed  powers  of  recuperation 
that  largely  tend  to  immunization  against  such  de- 
generative effects  as  are  of  war. 

[278] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

When  a  large  limb  is  lopped  from  a  tree,  the 
mother-stem  puts  out  a  new  shoot,  and  grows  an- 
other strong  limb  in  its  place;  similarly,  when 
limbs  are  lopped  from  the  human  family  tree,  new 
limbs  are  stimulated  to  growth.  This  peculiarity 
of  living  things  is  strangely  manifested  in  certain 
species,  particularly  among  the  lower  orders  of 
•animals.  Certain  animals  have  no  way  of  seeking 
self-preservation  except  by  breeding  in  such  large 
numbers  as  to  supply  the  appetites  of  all  enemies, 
and  glut  the  demand.  A  big  salmon  sometimes 
lays  a  gallon  of  small  eggs,  often  numbering  as 
high  as  27,000,000.  Certain  species  of  polyp  are 
provided  no  means  whatever,  either  by  speed  or 
powers  of  resistance,  to  defend  themselves,  but 
they  breed  so  rapidly  that  they  cannot  all  be 
eaten. 

Now  that  we  have  defended  war  against  the 
charge  of  securing  the  survival  of  the  unfit,  and 
have  proved  that,  on  the  contrary,  war  has,  dur- 
ing all  the  ages,  been  instrumental  in  securing 
the  survival  of  the  fit,  let  us,  without  presuming 
against  peace,  see  whether  or  not  peace  has  a 
blameless  record. 

The  long  periods  of  peace  during  the  past  cen- 
tury have  allowed  the  peoples  time  and  oppor- 
tunity to  acquire  wealth  and  luxury,  and  to  de- 
velop peculiar  tastes,  especially  along  emotional 
lines.   .    .    .   Modern  fiction  is  a  universal  love 

[279] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

story.  Art  is  largely  a  portrayal  of  sentimen- 
tality. 

In  olden  times,  when  human  suffering  in  every 
guise,  born  of  war,  was  very  common,  the  appeals 
of  the  poor,  the  weak,  and  the  infirm  were  not 
much  heeded,  for  there  were  ever  present  such 
severe  and  exacting  concerns  as  to  command  the 
attention  and  to  absorb  the  resources  of  the 
people. 

In  time  of  peace  less  rigid  economy  is  practised 
than  in  time  of  war.  Dangers  and  hardships, 
which  are  the  concomitants  of  war,  have  been 
found  in  all  ages  better  formative  influences  for 
making  hardy,  successful  men  than  a  life  of  ease, 
comfort,  and  luxury.  Consequently,  in  time  of 
peace  there  is  a  far  more  preponderant  tendency 
toward  degeneracy  and  national  decay  than  there 
is  in  time  of  war,  in  spite  of  the  large  numbers 
of  fine  specimens  of  manhood  that  are  killed  in 
war. 

When  Cyrus  the  Great,  with  his  hardy  moun- 
taineers, had  conquered  the  peace-loving,  comfort- 
loving  people  of  the  lowlands,  he  told  his  soldiers 
that  they  must  not  make  their  homes  in  the  low- 
lands, but  must  return  to  their  mountain  fast- 
nesses, because  if  they  settled  to  a  life  of  ease  and 
luxury,  they  would  become  unwarlike,  effeminate, 
and  degenerate,  like  the  lowlanders  they  had  con- 
quered and  enslaved,  and  later  would  themselves 
be  conquered  and  enslaved  by  other  mountaineers 

[280] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

inured  to  privations  and  hardships,  who  would 
descend  upon  them. 
Witness  the  wisdom  of  Herodotus,  who  said : 

''It  is  the  settled  appointment  of  Nature  that 
soft  soils  should  breed  soft  men,  and  that  the  same 
land  should  never  be  famous  for  the  excellence  of 
its  fruit  and  for  the  vigor  of  its  inhabitants." 

Montesquieu  said: 

''The  barrenness  of  the  soil  makes  men  indus- 
trious, sober,  hard-working,  courageous,  and  war- 
like, for  they  must  obtain  by  their  own  exertion 
that  which  the  earth  denies  them,  whilst  the  fer- 
tility of  a  country  produces  in  them  love  of  ease, 
indolence,  and  a  sense  of  cautious  self-preserva- 
tion.'^ 

The  ancient  Spartans  in  time  of  peace  volun- 
tarily subjected  themselves  to  every  privation  and 
hardship  necessary  to  keep  them  in  prime  condi- 
tion for  instant  war. 

Nature  is  never  moved  by  pity.  Nature  is  not  a 
sentimentalist.  The  earthquake  shock  is  no  re- 
specter of  persons.  When  a  ship  founders,  the 
angry  waves  of  the  sea  show  no  mercy  to  the 
drowning,  and  have  no  pity  for  those  struggling 
to  survive  in  the  life-boats.  The  arctic  airs  of 
winter  are  as  savage  to  those  exposed  to  them  aa 

[281] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

are  the  teeth  of  wolves.  All  animal  life  on  the 
earth  must  constantly  contend  with  both  the  de- 
vouring elements  of  Nature  and  the  devouring 
greed  of  other  animal  life. 

Pity  is  a  child  of  the  imagination,  and  is,  for 
that  reason,  a  peculiarly  human  attribute.  It 
is  a  very  noble  trait,  and  is  of  material  aid  in 
greatening  mutual  human  usefulness.  Neverthe- 
less, no  one  thinks  for  a  moment  of  blaming  any 
of  the  lower  animals  for  their  appetites  and  pas- 
sions ;  they  are  understood  to  be  normal  and  neces- 
sary. Similarly,  all  our  normal  appetites  and 
passions  are  necessary.  Considered  in  the  broad, 
as  natural  attributes,  there  are  no  such  things  as 
bad  normal  emotions  and  passions ;  it  is  only  when 
they  become  perverted  by  degeneracy  or  abuse 
that  they  are  evil. 

The  passion  of  pity  may  be  perverted  and 
abused  just  as  the  sex  appetite  or  the  appetite 
for  food  and  drink. 

If  human  pity  had  dominated  the  council  at  the 
creation  of  the  world,  the  result  would  have  been 
infinite  injury,  because  none  of  the  higher  orders 
of  animals,  even  man  himself,  could  have  been 
developed.  In  short,  there  would  have  been  no  in- 
telligent beings  on  earth. 

During  periods  of  peace,  a  large  number  of  per- 
sons, moved  by  pity  for  the  indigent,  the  halt,  the 
lame,  the  blind,  extend  to  them  the  alleviating  hand 
of  charity.   Philanthropy  finds  favor  in  the  public 

C282] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

eye,  and  charity  becomes  a  cheap  and  easy  means 
of  courting  public  opinion.  The  philanthropist 
with  means  for  gratifying  his  passion  of  pity,  or 
the  ambitious  aspirant  for  public  favor  with  cash 
to  invest  in  public  opinion,  finds  himself  soon  sur- 
rounded with  a  multitude  of  itchy-palmy  hands  to 
help  him  spend  his  money  to  buy  what  he  is  after, 
and  at  the  same  time  obtain  profit  for  themselves. 
Consequently,  objects  of  charity  become  oppor- 
tunities to  be  prized  and  made  the  most  of. 
Charity  organizations  are  supported  both  by  well- 
meaning  sympathetic  persons  and  by  publicity- 
purchasing  persons  and  their  press-agents. 

Many  an  ambitious  politician  or  social  climber 
finds  it  profitable  to  become  a  patron  of  some  sup- 
posedly deserving  charity.  Kecently,  some  one 
inquired  into  the  methods  of  a  New  York  charity 
organization,  and  found  that  the  sum  paid  in 
salaries  to  the  various  officers  of  the  society  was 
more  than  twice  the  amount  actually  expended 
in  charity.  But  those  who  donated  the  money 
got  what  they  paid  for;  the  hangers-on  of  the 
society  got  what  they  wanted,  and  thereby  les- 
sened the  actual  harm  that  the  money  would  have 
done  had  it  all  reached  its  supposed  objects. 

While  a  limited  amount  of  well-directed  chari- 
table effort  may  be  for  the  general  good,  still  by 
far  the  larger  part  of  promiscuous  charity  does 
harm.  Broadly  speaking,  charity  of  all  kinds  is 
wrong  in  principle,  because  the  misfortunes  of 

[283] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

the  unfit  are  a  part  of  natural  processes  for  their 
elimination,  and  anything  done  by  charity  to  de- 
feat the  decrees  of  Nature  is  wrong. 

These  are  some  of  the  responsibilities  for  which 
we  friends  of  peace  must  stand,  if  we  succeed  in 
preventing  war  by  preparedness  against  war. 

Those  w^ho  are  advocating  the  abolition  of 
armaments,  and  are  thereby  fostering  war,  have 
not  this  responsibility;  for,  if  they  are  success- 
ful in  what  they  are  teaching  and  doing,  the  pretty 
constant  warfare  that  will  prevail  among  the 
great  nations  during  the  next  century  will  cure 
much  of  the  hypersentimentalism  that  finds  ex- 
pression in  large  degenerative  charities ;  and  these 
charities  will  be  swept  away  under  the  tread  of 
marching  armies.  Whereas,  if  we  succeed,  by  our 
advocacy,  in  securing  adequate  armaments,  and 
thereby  maintain  enduring  peace,  then  nothing 
can  prevent  our  great  promiscuous  charities  from 
continuing  to  secure  the  survival  of  the  unfit  with 
the  continuous  pollution  of  the  blood-stream  of 
the  race  from  their  degenerate  blood  through  in- 
termarriage with  normal  persons. 

The  arrestation  of  the  self -purifying  processes 
of  Nature  which  are  intended  to  clarify  the  blood 
of  the  race,  by  breeding  the  unfit  and  turning  them 
back  upon  the  race,  is  like  turning  the  sewage  of 
a  city  into  its  water  supply. 

If  all  incompetents — the  hopelessly  diseased  and 
degenerate — were  to  be  exterminated,  it  would  be 

[284] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

a  very  good  thing  for  the  race.  Such  methods 
have  actually  been  practised  in  the  past.  At  one 
time,  when  ancient  Babylon  was  besieged,  all  the 
aged  and  diseased  were  murdered ;  and  in  ancient 
Greece,  deformed  or  diseased  children  were 
killed  at  birth.  But  the  trouble  with  this  method 
is  that  no  men  possessing  the  human  qualities 
rendering  them  worthy  of  survival  could  be  found 
among  us  to  do  the  wholesale  executions.  The 
mere  possession  of  the  inhuman  qualities  neces- 
sary to  carry  out  the  wholesale  slaughter  would 
elect  the  executioners  themselves  for  slaughter. 
Man  cannot  be  pitiless,  like  Nature,  without  him- 
self becoming  unworthy  of  pity,  and,  consequently, 
unworthy  of  survival. 

Human  survival  must  be  co-operative.  Human 
reproduction  depends  somewhat  on  lovability. 
According  to  the  law  of  natural  selection,  a  lov- 
able person  is  selected  rather  than  an  unlovable 
person.  Neither  sex  is  so  apt  to  fall  in  love  and 
mate  with  a  person  of  the  other  sex  who  is  pitiless, 
as  with  one  possessing  pity  and  sympathy.  Pity 
and  sympathy,  just  like  the  love  of  parenthood, 
are  bonds  of  the  family.  A  community — a  nation 
— is  only  a  larger  family. 

Charity  and  sympathy  make  men  gregarious. 
A  world  without  charity  or  sympathy  would  be 
most  unattractive.  Human  companionship  in  its 
higher  values  would  not  exist. 

Nevertheless,  when  charity  and  sympathy  build 
[  285  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

and  support  large  almshouses,  until,  as  in  Lon- 
don, one-third  of  all  the  property  tax  goes  to  the 
poor  fund,  then  charity  becomes  an  institution 
for  breeding  paupers  and  imbeciles.  Such  char- 
ity is  the  misuse  of  a  virtue.  Nine-tenths  of  all 
the  paupers  of  one  generation  in  England  are 
children  of  the  paupers  of  a  preceding  genera- 
tion. 

The  following  is  what  an  eminent  Englishman 
has  to  say  of  the  condition  of  things  in  his 
country : 

*'We  have  a  standing  army  of  1^00,000  paupers, 
and  our  permanent  and  occasional  paupers  num- 
ber together  at  least  3,000,000.  Our  paupers  are 
maintained  at  a  yearly  cost  of  about  £30,000,000 
to  the  community,  and  were  it  not  for  the  Draconic 
administration  of  our  poor-laws  all  our  work- 
houses would  be  overcrowded  by  workers  who 
would  gladly  exchange  freedom  and  starvation 
wages  for  the  confinement  of  the  workhouse.  No 
other  nation  has  an  army  of  paupers  similar  to 
that  of  Great  Britain." — J,  Ellis  Barker,  in 
*' Great  and  Greater  Britain," 

A  Cat  Stoey 

Once  upon  a  time  there  was  an  excellent  Queen 
who  ruled  over  a  beautiful  and  fruitful  island. 
The  island  was  not  large ;  it  had  an  area  of  only 

[286] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

a  few  square  miles,  and  the  inhabitants  num- 
bered but  a  thousand.  They  lived  mainly  by  fish- 
ing and  agriculture. 

The  Queen  loved  both  her  people  and  her  cats. 
As  she  would  not  allow  a  kitten  killed,  cats 
soon  overran  the  palace.  Some  of  these  cats, 
dominated  by  the  mousing  instinct,  took  up  their 
habitation  in  the  fields  and  woods ;  for  mice,  small 
birds,  squirrels,  and  all  manner  of  cat-game  were 
plentiful  on  the  island. 

The  cats  continued  to  multiply,  until  they  be- 
came a  great  pest  to  the  farmers,  killing  their 
chickens,  ducklings,  and  song-birds.  Then  the 
good  Queen  divided  the  island  between  her  people 
and  her  cats.  She  gave  a  tenth  of  the  island  to 
the  cats.  A  fence  was  built  between  the  cats  and 
the  people. 

The  cats  soon  multiplied  to  the  number  of 
20,000,  but  there  was  not  forage  enough  to  feed 
them  through  the  next  winter ;  consequently,  half 
of  them  died  during  the  cold  weather.  In  the  au- 
tumn of  the  following  year  there  were  again 
20,000  cats  on  the  island,  half  of  which  were 
doomed  to  die  by  starvation  during  the  winter; 
but  the  kind-hearted  Queen  taxed  the  people  for 
food  sufficient  to  feed  the  cats,  and  to  save  as 
many  lives  as  possible. 

The  succeeding  summer  being  long  and  fruit- 
ful, the  cats  thrived  well,  and  the  next  autumn 
there  were  50,000  cats  on  the  island,  and  as  there 

[287] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

was  but  forage  enough  to  winter  10,000  cats, 
40,000  must  starve  during  the  coming  winter,  un- 
less fed.  Again  the  Queen  taxed  her  people,  and 
the  cats  were  saved ;  but,  to  the  amazement  of  the 
Queen  and  her  little  people,  the  next  autumn 
brought  100,000  hungry  cats  to  be  fed,  and  it  had 
come  to  a  point  where  either  the  people  or  the 
cats  must  starve. 

With  grief,  the  Queen  decided  in  favor  of  the 
people,  for  it  was  evident  that,  if  the  people  were 
allowed  to  starve  to  save  the  cats,  the  cats  also 
would  starve  without  the  people.  That  year, 
90,000  cats  starved  to  death  on  the  island. 

Thus,  the  good  Queen's  well-meant  charity,  in- 
tended to  save  10,000  cats  from  starving  to  death, 
finally  resulted  in  90,000  cats  starving  to  death. 
Actually,  her  attempt  to  lessen  cat  misery  multi- 
plied that  misery  nine-fold. 

Now,  what  was  true  of  those  cats  applies  with 
exactly  equal  truth  to  the  rearing  of  paupers  and 
incompefents  in  times  of  peace. 

In  all  the  countries  of  the  civilized  world  to- 
day, there  are  institutions  for  rearing  and  edu- 
cating idiots.  Sometimes,  a  section  of  an  idiot's 
skull  is  cut  out,  and  the  skull  trepanned  in  order 
to  give  his  little  brain  room  to  expand.  In 
this  way,  an  idiot,  incapable  of  feeding  himself, 
may  develop  intelligence  enough  to  vote,  under 
the  instruction  of  the  ward-heeler,  or  he  may  even 

[  288  ] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

develop  into  a  public  expounder  of  the  beauties 
of  defenselessness  as  a  safeguard  against  war. 

The  most  common  of  all  errors  of  conviction  is 
the  belief  that  knowledge  of  right-doing  necessa- 
rily leads  us  to  do  right.  But  the  truth  is,  that  we 
are  mainly  guided  by  sentiment,  even  when  it  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  our  knowledge  of  right. 
No  branch  of  our  learning  is  more  strongly  forti- 
fied by  facts  of  experience  than  that  thoroughbred 
animals  cannot  be  bred  from  scrub  stock;  that 
superior  types  of  dogs  cannot  be  bred  from  mon- 
grels ;  that  a  fast  trotting-horse  is  never  sired  by 
a  Mexican  burro  or  foaled  by  a  heavy  draught- 
mare. 

We  know  absolutely  that  identically  the  same 
laws  govern  the  breeding  both  of  human  beings 
and  of  the  lower  animals,  and  that  exactly  accord- 
ing to  the  seed  sown  will  the  fruit  be.  If  senti- 
ment leads  us  to  sow  tares  among  the  wheat,  we  in- 
evitably injure  the  wheat.  No  breeder  of  the 
lower  animals  would,  from  sentimental  considera- 
tions, employ  inferior  types  for  his  purposes. 

With  human  growth,  just  as  with  the  growth  of 
vegetation  in  forest  and  field,  there  is  only  a  cer- 
tain limited  amount  of  room  in  the  sun,  and  a  cer- 
tain limited  amount  of  nourishment  and  moisture 
in  the  soil.  When  charity  aids  an  inferior  type 
to  secure  a  plot  of  earth  and  a  plot  of  sky,  it  can 
do  so  only  at  the  expense  of  some  better  type, 
which  would  otherwise  have  conquered  the  spaces 

[  289  J 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

for  itself,  had  not  the  inferior  specimen  had 
charity  as  an  ally. 

Apropos  of  this  philosophy,  I  quote  the  follow- 
ing from  an  article  in  Science  by  G.  H.  Parker, 
Professor  of  Zoology,  of  Harvard: — 

''Thus  asylums,  retreats,  hospitals,  and  so  forth, 
have  been  established  by  private  munificence  or 
public  grants.  More  or  less  under  the  protec- 
tion of  these  institutions  has  grown  up  a  body  of 
semi-dependents  and  defectives  whose_  increase  it 
is  that  excites  the  apprehension  of  the  eugenists. 
That  in  the  past  such  individuals  have  always 
formed  a  part  of  our  race  cannot  be  doubted, 
but  that  they  ever  showed  a  tendency  to  increase 
comparable  with  what  seems  to  be  occurring  at 
present  is  highly  improbable.  The  occasion  of 
this  increase  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  merely  the 
exigencies  of  modern  civilization;  it  is  at  least  in 
part  due  to  the  immense  spread  of  humanitarian 
activities  which  have  characterized  the  last  cen- 
tury of  our  civilization." 

If  Andrew  Carnegie  were  to  give  $100,000,000 
for  the  support  of  paupers  in  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  and  another  $100,000,000  for 
the  saving  and  kindly  treatment  and  support  of 
imbeciles  and  incompetents,  more  continuous 
harm  to  the  race  would  result,  by  securing  the 
survival  of  the  unfit,   than  would  result  from 

[290] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

a  perpetual  war  between  any  two  of  the 
nations  now  engaged  in  the  great  European 
conflict. 

As  all  charities  thrive  like  a  green  bay  tree  in 
times  of  peace,  and  are  neglected  in  times  of  war, 
it  will  be  seen  that  charity  alone  in  times  of  peace 
is  more  potent  in  securing  the  survival  of  the 
unfit  than  war  could  possibly  be. 

About  here,  the  reader  may  conclude  that  I  am 
just  as  inconsistent  in  advocating  armaments  to 
preserve  peace,  which,  I  hold,  tends  to  foster  de- 
generacy and  decay,  as  are  the  pacifists  who,  by 
advocating  disarmament,  promote  war,  which, 
they  hold,  is  most  potential  in  fostering  the  same 
thing. 

But  this  is  not  so  striking  an  inconsistency  as 
may  first  appear,  because,  as  I  have  shown,  nation- 
wide military  training,  such  as  that  practised  in 
Switzerland,  would  make  for  regeneracy  and  effi- 
ciency far  more  than  all  our  charities,  vices,  and 
profligacy  make  for  degeneracy  and  decay.  No 
branch  of  education — ^not  even  all  the  prevalent 
preachments  on  the  subjects  of  hygiene,  moral  re- 
form, cleanliness,  temperance,  and  right  living — 
would  be  so  influential  for  betterment  as  would  the 
introduction  of  the  Swiss  system  of  military  train- 
ing. 

In  order  to  be  a  good  soldier,  a  man  must  be 
fit,  just  as  a  college  athlete  must  be  fit;  and  mili- 
tary training,  like  the  training  of  the  college  ath- 

[291] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

lete,  compels  him  to  observe  the  hygienic  laws  of 
right  living. 

We  grow  upon  what  we  do  and  what  we  eat.  If 
we  live  on  an  unbalanced  food,  which  supplies  too 
much  of  one  kind  of  nourishment  and  too  little  of 
another,  we  become  unbalanced  in  body  and  mind. 
Similarly,  if  our  occupation  exercises  some  of  our 
organs  and  faculties  too  much  and  others  not 
enough,  we  become  unbalanced  in  body  and 
mind. 

The  saying  is  trite  that  a  sound  mind  requires 
a  sound  body.  Likewise,  a  balanced  mind  must 
have  a  balanced  body. 

The  occupations  of  civil  life,  if  not  constantly 
accompanied  by  systematic,  scientific  mental  and 
physical  training  throw  us  out  of  balance.  The 
success  of  Muldoon's  famous  human  repair-shop 
depends  entirely  upon  building  up  by  proper  food 
and  strenuous  exercise  long-neglected  organs  and 
faculties. 

The  lower  branches  of  a  tree,  which  do  not  re- 
ceive the  necessary  exercise  from  the  wind,  and 
the  necessary  vitalizing  stimulus  of  the  sun,  gradu- 
ally atrophy,  and  wither,  die,  and  drop  off;  like- 
wise do  unused  and  unstimulated  organs  and 
faculties  of  the  body  shrink  toward  atrophy  and 
pale  toward  death.  The  only  part  of  a  tree  that  is 
alive  is  where  the  sap  runs.  All  the  rest  of  the 
tree  is  dead.  Organs  and  faculties  of  the  human 
body  not  adequately  exercised  to  circulate  through 

[292] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

them  the  required  amount  of  sap,  gradually  begin 
to  die. 

Lord  Kitchener  is  the  Muldoon  of  the  new  Eng- 
lish army.  The  raw  recruits  are  trained  for  their 
coming  fight  in  much  the  same  manner  that  a 
pugilist  is  trained.  They  are  made  to  take  the 
long  walk  out  and  the  sharp  run  home,  carrying 
weights ;  they  wrestle  and  spar ;  perform  all  man- 
ner of  calisthenics  and  gymnastics ;  are  fed  proper 
food,  and  are  made  properly  to  bathe.  To  the 
great  majority  of  them,  this  man-making  training 
is  a  revelation,  but  they  find  themselves  so  im- 
proved in  health  and  so  strengthened  in  body  and 
mind  that,  when  they  return  to  civil  life_,  they 
will  still  utilize  much  of  the  useful  knowledge  of 
how  to  get  fit  and  keep  fit;  and  just  as  the  hard 
work  imposed  upon  the  soldiers  is  made  easier  by 
their  military  training,  so,  when  they  return  to 
civil  life,  they  will  find  all  their  tasks  much  easier 
of  accomplishment. 

The  following  is  quoted  from  a  letter  just  re- 
ceived by  me  from  a  prominent  English  clergy- 
man: 

"The  war  is  making  the  Britisher  a  neuu  man, 
and  he  is  blissfully  unconscious  of  the  conversion 
in  himself.  Every  class  is  feeling  the  uplift.  He 
will  be  stronger  in  his  religion,  his  politics,  and 
his  commerce.  Half  the  men  in  Kitchener's  Army 
hate  fighting  and  taking  life.    They  have  enlisted 

[293] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

for  conscience'  sake.    Naturally  they  wUl  make 
the  finest  soldiers." 

Soldierly  fitness  includes  not  only  those  sterling 
qualities  of  higher  manhood — cleanliness,  tem- 
perance, efficiency,  and  moral  stamina,  raised  from 
a  semi-subconscious  latency  into  conscious  action 
by  a  military  training — but  also  it  includes  that 
very  important  attribute — devotion.  A  military 
training  develops  a  vague  sense  of  patriotism 
whose  height  is  a  hurrah  for  country,  to  that 
height  of  devotion  where  one  will  gladly  die  for 
his  country. 

In  South  America,  there  is  a  very  potential 
little  republic  where  military  training  produces 
just  such  beneficial  results  in  a  very  high  degree. 
Chili,  perhaps,  comes  nearer  to  Germany  in  eco- 
nomic efficiency  than  any  other  country  in  the 
world. 

Nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than  the  fear  of 
the  American  people  that  a  good-sized  standing 
army  of  trained  soldiers  would  menace  their  lib- 
erty. The  very  preparation,  by  education  and 
training,  necessary  to  make  a  good  soldier,  being 
the  very  best  training  in  the  world  to  make  him  a 
good  citizen,  would  constitute  one  of  the  strong- 
est fortifications  possible  to  defend  us  against  our- 
selves. It  would  act  as  a  gyroscopic  stabilizer 
for  our  democratic  institutions,  and  an  equili- 
brator  for  our  vacillating  hot-air  ship  of  state. 

[294] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

One  of  the  very  best  books  that  I  have  yet  seen 
upon  the  subject  of  peace  and  war  is  "Peace  In- 
surance,'* by  Eichard  Stockton,  Jr.,  published  in 
January,  1915,  by  A.  C.  McClurg  and  Company. 
It  is  a  book  that  cannot  fail  at  this  time  to  do  a 
large  amount  of  good,  and  I  heartily  recommend 
it  to  the  reader.  I  quote  the  following  from  its 
pages ; 

**To  avoid  exaggeration  we  shall  quote  first 
Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  who  attempts  to  show  the 
horrors  of  war  in  his  book,  'War — What  For?'  by 
extracts  from  the  New  York  Independent  of 
March  14,  1907: 

'*  'It  is  the  common  consensus  of  opinion  among 
investigators  that  industrial  casualties  in  this  na- 
tion number  more  than  500,000  yearly.  Dr.  Josiah 
Strong  estimates  the  number  at  564,000.  As  there 
are  525,600  minutes  in  a  year,  it  may  readily  be 
seen  that  every  minute  (day  and  night)  our  in- 
dustrial system  sends  to  the  graveyard  or  to  the 
hospital  a  human  being,  the  victim  of  some  acci- 
dent inseparable  from  his  toil.  We  cry  out 
against  the  horrors  of  war.  .  .  .  But  the  ravages 
.  .  .  of  industrial  warfare  are  far  greater  than 
those  of  armed  conflict.  The  number  of  killed 
or  mortally  wounded  (including  deaths  from  acci- 
dents, suicides,  and  murders,  but  excluding  deaths 
from  disease)  in  the  Philippine  War  from  Febru- 
ary  4,  1899,  to  April  30,  1902,  was  1,573.    These 

[295] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

fatal  casualties  were  spread  over  a  period  of  three 
years  and  three  months.  But  one  coal  mine  alone 
in  one  year  furnishes  a  mortality  more  than  38 
per  cent,  in  excess  of  this. 

''  'The  Japanese  War  is  commonly  looked  upon 
as  the  bloodiest  of  modern  ivars.  According  to 
the  official  statement  of  the  Japanese  Government, 
46,180  Japanese  were  killed,  and  10,970  died  of 
wounds.  Our  industrial  war  shows  a  greater  mor- 
tality year  by  year. 

''  'But  we  are  all  of  us  more  familiar  with  the 
Civil  War,  and  we  know  what  frightful  devastation 
it  caused  in  households  North  and  South.  It  was, 
however,  but  a  tame  conflict  compared  with  that 
which  rages  today,  and  which  we  call  peace.  The 
slaughter  of  its  greatest  battles  are  thrown  in  the 
shade  by  the  slaughter  which  particular  industries 
inflict  today.  Ask  any  schoolboy  to  name  three 
of  the  bloodiest  battles  of  that  war,  and  he  will 
probably  name  Gettysburg,  Chancellor sville,  and 
Chickamauga.    The  loss  on  both  sides  was: 

Killed  Wounded 

Gettysburg    5,662  27,203 

Chancellor  sville   3,271  18,843 

Chickamauga    3,924  23,362 

Total  12,857         69,408 


It  I 


^But  our  railroads,  state  and  interstate,  and 
our  trolleys  in  one  year  equal  this  record  in  the 

[296] 


CD 
Q 

E 


CO 
0} 
'■*-> 
(D 

(0 

(D 

O 


.^ 


o 

^ 

O 

Q 

c 

s 

CD 

^ 

5 

4 

■D 

■5 

C 
CO 

..5 

!H' 

CD 

•^ 

LL 

I' 


Jmericans  in  Spanish  ff^ar^lZS 
\  Americans  in  Mexican  War — %62 

\Englisk  in  Boer  War— 2,990 

{Average  Annual  Number  of 
§  H    Ejtglish  and  French  Killed  in 
uT  ^B  Crimean  War— 10,547 


•5  ^  Average  ^Annual  Number  Killed 
on  Federal  Side  in  American 
Civil  War— 27,518 


\  Average  Annual  Number  of 
Japanese  Killed  in 
Russo-Japanese  War— 33,340 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

number  of  hillings  and  double  it  in  the  number  of 
woundings.' 

*'Said  Dr.  Josiah  Strong  in  the  North  Ameri- 
can Review  for  November,  1906: 

"  '  We  might  carry  on  a  half-dozen  Philippine 
wars  for  three-quarters  of  a  century  with  no 
larger  number  of  total  casualties  than  take  place 
yearly  in  our  peaceful  industries. 

*'  'Talcing  the  lowest  of  our  three  estimates  of 
industrial  accidents,  the  total  number  of  casualties 
suffered  by  our  industrial  army  in  one  year  is 
equal  to  the  average  annual  casualties  of  our  Civil 
War,  plus  those  of  the  Philippine  War,  plus  those 
of  the  Russian-Japanese  War. 

*'  'Think  of  carrying  on  three  wars  at  the  same 
time,  world  without  end.* 

"Said  President  Roosevelt  in  his  Annual  Mes- 
sage for  1907: 

"  'Industry  in  the  United  States  now  exacts 
.  .  .  a  far  heavier  toll  of  death  than  all  of  our 
wars  put  together.  .  .  .  The  number  of  deaths  in 
battle  in  all  the  foreign  wars  put  together  for 
the  last  century  and  a  quarter,  aggregate  con- 
siderably less  than  one  year's  death  record  for  our 
industries,*  .  .  . 

[297] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

*' Glancing  over  these  comparisons  between  war 
and  peace,  we  find  that  much  of  the  horror  of 
war  dwindles  away.  Comparing  those  actually 
hilled  in  industry  and  accident  with  those  killed 
or  dying  from  wounds  in  various  wars,  we  find 
that  the  annual  peace  rate  is  approximately  two 
and  a  half  times  that  of  the  average  annual  Japa- 
nese loss,  three  times  that  of  the  Union  loss  in  the 
Civil  War,  five  times  the  Russian  loss  in  the 
Japanese  War,  six  times  the  Confederate  loss  in 
the  Civil  War,  twenty-eight  times  the  English  loss 
in  the  Anglo-Boer  War,  and  ninety  times  the 
American  loss  in  the  Spanish  War.  In  other 
words,  it  would  take  the  average  annual  deaths  of 
the  English  and  French  in  the  Crimea,  the  Ameri- 
cans in  the  Mexican  War,  the  North  in  the  Civil 
War,  the  Americans  in  the  Spanish  War,  the  Eng- 
lish in  the  Boer  War,  and  the  Japanese  in  the 
Russian  War  to  approach  the  annual  United 
States  peace  rate.  Assuming  the  burden  of  all 
these  wars,  at  once,  and  without  ceasing,  would  be 
no  more  a  drain  than  our  peace  death  rate!  Need 
we  say  more  as  to  the  cost  in  lives,  as  to  the  sor- 
rowing mother,  sweetheart,  and  wife?  Think  of 
these  things.  Where  now  is  the  bestiality  and 
horror?  Does  it  belong  more  to  war  where  com- 
paratively few  die  for  their  country  willingly  and 
nobly,  or  to  peace  where  the  multitudes  die  for 
sordid  gain — for  dollars  and  cents?  Would  it  not 
be  meet  for  the  pacifists,  assuming  that  they  have 

[298] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

the  best  interest  of  the  country  at  heart,  to  turn 
first  to  the  horrors  of  peace,  and  lastly  to  the  hor- 
rors  of  war?" 

It  is  well  to  observe  that  a  very  large  percentage 
of  the  injuries  and  deaths  in  the  United  States  in 
times  of  peace,  noted  by  Dr.  Strong,  are  due  to 
preventable  causes,  and  one  of  the  best  remedies  is 
a  military  training.  In  Germany,  the  number  of 
persons  per  capita  of  population  killed  and  in- 
jured by  accidents  in  time  of  peace  is  not  half  as 
great  as  it  is  in  the  United  States. 

These  losses  are  part  of  the  high  price  that  this 
country  pays  for  inefficiency.  They  could  be  very 
largely  remedied  by  military  training,  which 
quickens  awareness  and  alertness.  Many  an  acci- 
dent resulting  in  severe  wounding  or  death  is  due 
to  undeveloped  and  untrained  powers  of  mind,  and 
to  lack  of  physical  co-ordination.  In  the  works 
of  the  National  Cash  Register  Company,  at  Day- 
ton, Ohio,  where  all  employees  are  given  the 
equivalent  of  military  training  in  care  and  effi- 
ciency, personal  injury  through  accidents  is  al- 
most entirely  eliminated. 

A  man  who  has  been  taught  to  play  football  and 
to  box  and  wrestle  in  his  youth  is  not  nearly  so 
likely  in  after  years  to  fall  and  injure  himself, 
or  to  be  hit  by  a  trolley  car,  or  automobile,  as 
one  who  has  not  had  that  training.  Similarly,  a 
man  who,  in  his  youth,  has  had  his  mind  developed 

[  299  ] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

to  quick  alertness,  and  every  muscle  of  his  body 
brought  under  the  domination  of  the  will  by  mili- 
tary training,  is  far  less  likely  to  be  injured  by 
accident  than  one  who  has  not  had  a  military 
training.  Consequently,  many  of  the  ills  of  peace 
may  be  cured  by  the  practice  of  the  very  medicine 
that  is  the  best  remedy  for  war. 

William  James,  in  an  article  entitled,  ''The 
Moral  Equivalent  of  War,"  starts  out  with  the 
remark,  *'The  war  against  war  is  going  to  be  no 
holiday  excursion  or  camping  party."  He  adds 
that,  ''There  is  something  highly  paradoxical  in 
the  modern  man's  relation  to  war." 

He  continues: 

''Ask  all  our  millions  north  and  south  whether 
they  would  vote  now  to  have  our  war  for  the 
Union  expunged  from  history,  and  the  record 
of  a  peaceful  transition  to  the  present  time  sub- 
stituted for  that  of  its  marches  and  battles,  and, 
probably  hardly  a  handful  of  eccentrics  would  say 
yes. 

''Yet  ask  those  same  people  whether  they  would 
be  willing  in  cold  blood  to  stand  another  civil  war 
now  to  gain  another  similar  possession,  and  not  one 
man  or  woman  would  vote  for  the  proposition." 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  same  Southern  states 
that  then  seceded  were  to  secede  again  today, 
capture  all  the  negroes  there  and  all  men  and 

[300] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

women  whose  skins  are  tinted  by  negro  blood, 
enslave  them,  and  establish  anew  the  auction 
block  at  the  slave  market:  then  let  ns  ask  the 
people  of  the  North  Mr.  James's  second  question. 

What  defense  has  the  average  person  against 
being  convinced  by  such  sophistry,  coming  from 
so  eminent  a  psychologist  and  philosopher  as 
William  James?  The  conclusion  of  the  average 
person  is:  ''A  great  man  like  him  must  know 
better  than  I,  he  having  made  a  study  of  such 
things."  This  article  was  given  wide  circulation 
by  the  Association  for  International  Conciliation. 
It  was  also  published  in  McClure's  Magazine,  and 
again  in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly. 

Others  have  said,  and  are  saying,  similar  silly 
things  about  the  war  against  war,  but  they  are 
not  men  of  such  intellectual  eminence  as  was 
William  James.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  David  Starr 
Jordan  is  a  very  prominent  person,  and  says 
things  even  sillier  than  anything  that  William 
James  said,  but  exactly  there  is  the  saving  grace 
of  his  sayings.  Some  of  his  conclusions  are  so 
utterly  irrational  and  absurd  as  to  enable  a  very 
large  number  of  persons  to  perceive  their  falsity, 
whereas  the  error  is  not  so  easily  perceived  in 
such  statements  as  the  foregoing  quoted  from  Mr. 
James. 

Let  us. examine  the  proposition  to  make  war 
on  war.  The  only  common-sense  way  to  wage 
war  on  war  is  to  war  against  the  evils  that  pro- 

[301] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

duce  war.  To  wage  war  on  war,  which  comes  like 
the  visitation  of  a  physician,  to  cure  ills,  would 
be  like  waging  war  on  the  medical  profession  to 
cure  a  decimating  pestilence.  To  arrest  the  hand 
of  the  surgeon  in  order  to  save  bloodshed  is  to  let 
the  patient  die  of  cancer. 

Our  Civil  War  was  merely  a  great  surgical 
operation  which  removed  a  malignant  cancer 
from  the  breast  of  Columbia.  Mars,  the  old  and 
experienced  surgeon,  made  a  good  job  of  it.  Co- 
lumbia's ailment  was  one  that  could  not  be  cured 
by  physic,  poultice,  incantations,  or  other  quack 
nostrums,  which,  Mr.  James  suggested,  might 
have  been  tried.  The  patient  had  to  be  operated 
on  with  the  sword,  so  that  the  question  as  to  the 
right  or  wrong  of  the  Civil  War,  and  as  to 
whether  it  should  have  then  been  fought,  and 
whether,  if  it  had  been  delayed  till  now,  it  should 
now  be  fought,  depends  upon  a  choice  of  evils — 
depends  entirely  upon  whether  or  not  American 
slavery  was  a  greater  evil  than  the  American  Civil 
War. 

Two  of  my  brothers  were  killed  in  the  awful 
struggle  to  free  the  slaves  and  save  the  Umon. 
It  was  worth  the  price  to  them,  to  me,  and  to  the 
rest  of  my  family;  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
every  other  family  in  the  country  who  made  a 
like  sacrifice  would  agree  with  me  that  to  free 
four  millions  of  human  beings  from  bondage  was 
worth  the  price.     Emancipation  then  not  only 

[302] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

freed  fonr  millions,  but  it  saved,  between  that 
time  and  now,  more  than  twenty  millions  from 
the  yoke  and  the  lash.  But,  what  is  stiU  more 
important,  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  eman- 
cipated their  masters  also — emancipated  all  of  us, 
North  and  South — and  raised  the  proclamation 
of  human  equality  by  our  country's  fathers  from 
a  mockery  and  a  shame  to  a  reality. 

If  there  were  men  and  women  and  children, 
bought  and  sold  in  this  country  today,  you  and  I, 
reader,  would  mix  up  in  the  infamous  business 
with  gun  and  sword,  and  we  would  not  wait  long 
to  do  much  voting  about  it,  either.  *' Great  na- 
tional problems,"  said  Bismarck,  **  are  solved 
not  by  speeches  and  resolutions  of  majorities,  but 
by  blood  and  iron." 

It  is  very  evident  that  it  would  have  been 
wrong  in  1860  for  some  powerful  external  force,, 
waging  war  against  war,  to  have  prevented  the 
Civil  War,  and  thereby  have  prevented  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  slaves. 

It  is  all  very  well  at  this  time  to  prate  about 
the  possibility  of  a  peaceful  settlement  of  the 
differences  between  the  North  and  South  before 
the  Civil  War  broke  out.  That  is  exactly  what 
was  tried.  Even  after  the  war  broke  out,  Lin- 
coln, one  of  the  greatest  men  that  America  ever 
produced,  tried  with  aU  his  might  to  do  that  very 
thing.    War  was  the  only  way. 

A  very  large  percentage  of  the  wars  of  the 
[303] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

world  have  been  waged  for  freedom — have  been 
wars  for  justice,  and  against  tyranny.  To  war 
against  such  wars  would  be  to  war  for  tyranny, 
and  against  freedom  and  justice.  Actually,  those 
who  today  are  recruiting  for  the  war  against 
war  are  asking  you  to  enlist  in  a  campaign  to 
shackle  the  hands  of  the  oppressed  in  future 
years,  and  tie  them  down  with  ball  and  chain  to 
prevent  them  from  striking  for  liberty.  They  are 
to  be  denied  the  right  of  war  for  freedom,  which 
was  our  right  in  the  Eevolution. 

Every  man  exerts  a  positive  influence  either 
for  good  or  for  evil.  If  the  advocates  of  dis- 
armament and  non-resistance  are  exerting  a  good 
influence,  then  I  am  exerting  a  bad  influence,  and 
every  advocate  of  armed  defense  is  a  worker  of 
evil.    You,  reader,  must  judge  between  us. 

If  it  is  wrong  to  insure  with  armaments  against 
invasion  of  this  country,  which  invasion  would 
mean  the  violation  of  our  homes,  the  rape  of  our 
wives  and  daughters  and  sisters  and  sweethearts ; 
if  it  is  right  to  invite  invasion  by  non-resistance, 
and  wrong  to  oppose  it  with  force;  if,  when  an 
enemy  injures  us,  it  is  the  correct  thing  to  let 
him  add  insult  to  the  first  offense;  then  it  is 
wrong  to  be  a  man,  it  is  wrong  to  resent  dishonor 
of  the  home,  and  all  of  us  who  have  any  manhood 
in  us  should  be  emasculated. 

If,  when  this  country  is  invaded,  some  militant 
scoundrel,  forcing  his  way  into  your  home,  should 

[304] 


GOOD  AND  EVIL 

lay  the  hand  of  violent  lust  on  trembling  wife  or 
daughter,  would  you  observe  the  pacifist  policy  of 
non-resistance,  or  would  you  kill  him  right  there, 
even  if  it  cost  you  your  life  ?  I  know  your  answer. 
The  invading  army  would  be  lessened  by  one 
soldier,  or  there  would  be  one  less  American. 


[305] 


CONCLUSION 
WHAT  SHALL  THE  END  BE? 

IS  it  possible  to  prescribe  a  remedy  for  war? 
We  know  that  law,  unsupported  by  force, 
cannot  be  substituted  for  war.  We  know  that 
war  will  obey  no  law  other  than  that  of  necessity, 
and,  consequently,  that  the  settling  of  national 
differences  at  an  international  court  of  concilia- 
tory arbitration  is  not  workable.  We  know  that 
no  nation  will  abide  by  the  dictates  of  any  such 
court  when  those  dictates  are  opposed  to  its  in- 
terests, unless' that  court  has  the  power  to  enforce 
its  decrees. 

We  know,  then,  that  an  international  court  of 
arbitration  can  dispense  only  such  justice  as  may 
be  consistent  with  the  interests  and  necessities  of 
the  nations  possessing  the  power  to  dominate  that 
court ;  therefore,  we  know  that  the  greatest  meas- 
ure of  justice  and  the  greatest  security  for  peace 
that  may  be  expected  are  only  what  may  be 
pledged  by  the  union  of  a  majority  of  the  great 
nations  in  a  pool  of  their  national  interests  and 
necessities,  to  maintain  such  international  order 
as  shall  be  consistent  with  the  terms  of  the  pool. 

[306] 


WHAT  SHALL  TEE  END  BEf 

All  other  nations  outside  of  the  pool  will  then 
be  compelled  to  observe  the  law  of  the  pooling 
nations,  because  the  necessity  of  keeping  peace 
with  these  dominant  Powers  will  be  greater  than 
any  other  necessity. 

The  justice  that  the  weaker  nations  may  expect 
will  depend  upon  the  degree  in  which  their  indi- 
vidual interests  are  the  mutual  concern  of  the 
larger  interests. 

Armies  and  navies  will  then  become  veritable 
international  police  forces,  and  the  necessity  for 
large  competitive  armaments  will  be  very  greatly 
lessened. 

There  will  then  be  greater  security  for  peace, 
although  this  striving  world  is  not  likely  soon  to 
be  a  safe  and  quiet  nesting  place  for  the  dove  of 
peace;  because  at  any  time,  when  the  necessities 
of  the  pooling  nations  shall  put  too  great  a  strain 
on  the  compact,  then  the  pool  will  break  and  war 
ensue.  The  great  aim  of  the  peoples  of  the  na- 
tions should  not  be  for  a  Utopian  peace  based 
on  merely  sentimental  grounds,  but  for  a  peace 
secured  by  so  practicable  an  entente  and  pact  be- 
tween the  great  Powers  as  shall,  entirely  aside 
from  sentiment,  work  for  the  best  welfare  of  the 
world. 

Russian,  Teuton,  Frenchman,  Anglo-Saxon, 
when  you  shall  have  returned  your  blood-wet 
swords  to  their  scabbards,  then  join  hands  over- 
seas with  us  Americans,  who  are  kin  to  all  the 

[307] 


DEFENSELESS  AMERICA 

blood  you  have  spilled,  and  let  us  take  serious 
counsel  of  one  another. 

But,  Americans,  though  we  may  turn  our  face 
toward  the  morning  that  should  come,  such  pos- 
turing cannot,  any  more  than  the  cock's-crow, 
bring  the  morning;  and  until  the  great  interna- 
tional compact  be  made,  we  shall  be  able  to  find 
safety  only  by  adequate  preparation  to  stand 
alone  against  the  dread  eventuality  of  war. 


[308] 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Dr.  Lyman,  opinions  of 

war,  52-53. 
Aerial  bomb:    few   advantages, 
many      disadvantages      of, 
205-11. 
Aerial  Warfare,  Chapter  VIII, 

203. 
Aeronautical  Society,  first  an- 
nual banquet  of,  16. 
Agroplane,  served  to  stimulate 
development     of     balloon, 
204; 
imperfections  of  first,  204; 
advantages     over     Zeppelin, 

214; 
less  expensive  than  Zeppelin, 

214; 
French  and  German,  ordered 

by  U.  S.,  216-17; 
foreign   coxmtries  possessing, 

218-19; 
indispensable  for  location  of 
masked  batteries,  219. 
Air-craft,  chief  use  of,  213; 
the  eyes  of  both   army  and 

navy,  219; 
a    necessity    in    present-day 

warfare,  219-20; 
lack  of,  in  America,  220-21. 
Alabama,  the,  193. 
Alexander  the  Great,  90. 
Alva,    Duke    of,    undertook   to 
kill    entire    population    of 
Netherlands,  239. 
American    and    British    manu- 
facturing works,  76. 
Arbitration,    international,    32, 
33,   34,  36,   37,  38,  39,  42, 
46,  306. 
Armaments,  a  safeguard  against 
war,  6,  7,  8,  9. 


Armaments,  a  small  burden  in 
proportion  to  burden  of 
luxuries,  226; 

benefits  of,  228; 

added  employment  of  labor  in 
construction    of,    decreases 
individual  taxation,  231. 
Armor-plate,    introduction    of, 
181; 

increase  in  thickness  of,  184; 

inferior  to  the  gun,  184; 

sufficiency  of,  dependent  upon 
insufficiency  of  gun  to 
which  it  is  opposed,  186; 

improvements  in,  189. 
Army,  our,  strength  of,  in  num- 
bers, 100,  117,  118; 

lack  of  artillery  and  train- 
ing in,   102; 

ignorance  of  people  as  to 
proper  equipment  of,  103, 
115; 

lack  of  system  in,  120; 

shortage  of  officers  of,  122, 
123; 

personnel  of  our  regular, 
126; 

total  enlisted  strength  of, 
126,  127; 

mobile  strength  of,  127; 

injustice  done  officers  of, 
146; 

a  standing,  one  of  the  strong- 
est fortifications,  294. 
Attila,  79. 

Automatic  magazine-rifle,  its 
effectiveness  over  old  meth- 
ods of  warfare,  86,  87. 


Balaklava,  the  noble  Six  "Hxai' 
dred  at,  102. 


[311] 


INDEX 


Balloon,   developed  with   aero- 
plane, 204; 
modern,  205; 

dirigible,  has  one  advantage 
over  aeroplane,  210. 

Battle-cruiser,       modern,       ab- 
sence of  any  in  U.  S.,  188; 
adopted  by  foreign  countries, 
188. 

Beatty,  Admiral,  reports  on 
North  Sea  fight,  195. 

Belgian  women,  abject  condi- 
tion of,  244,  245. 

Bemhardi,  extracts  from  his 
"  How  Germany  Makes 
War,"  89. 

Bessemer  steel  process  intro- 
duced by  Carnegie,  252. 

Bethlehem  Steel  Company, 
manufacture  of  guns  and 
armor-plate,  9,   10,   76. 

Billings,  Josh,  on  ignorance, 
23. 

Bismarck,   163. 

Blatchford,  Robert,  writer  for 
The    Daily    Mail,    quoted, 
164-67; 
mentioned,  167. 

Bliss,  E.  W.,  Torpedo  Works, 
77. 

Bloch,  M.  de,  author  of  "The 
Future    of    War,"    against 
possibility  of  war,  2; 
discussed,   93,  95. 

Bluecher,  the,  187. 

Bombshells,  185; 

dropped     from     airship     not 
very  effective,  209. 

"Britannia  Rules  the  Waves," 
97. 

Buckner,  Colonel  E.  G.,  vice- 
president  of  du  Pont 
Powder  Company,  257. 

Buffington,  General  A.  R.,  200, 
201. 


Csesar,  massacres  by,  40; 
mentioned,  90,  162. 


Can   Law   Be   Substituted  for 

War?  Chapter  II,  22. 
Canal,  Panama,  157,   173. 
Canning,    George,    attempts    to 
join  England  in  her  open- 
door  policy,  58. 
Cannon  designed  by  Mr.  Maxim 
to  illustrate  advantages  of 
projectiles    of    great    size, 
198; 
description  of,  198,   199. 
Carlyle,  quotations  from,  49. 
Carnegie,  Andrew,  68,  290; 
his  ideas  on  military  defense- 

lessness,  69; 
quotation  from,  70-71; 
his   views   discussed,    71,  72, 

73,  74,  75,  78,  80; 
greatest   American    armorer, 
252. 
Chaffee,    Lieut.-Gen.    Adna   R., 

quotation  from,  68. 
Charity,  evils  of,  283,  284,  285, 
289; 
J.  Ellis  Barker  on,  286; 
cat  story  illustrating  evils  of 

mistaken,  286-88; 
thrives  in  time  of  peace,  for- 
gotten   in    times    of    war, 
291. 
Chittenden,  Hiram  M.,  his  ar- 
raignment of  war,  267-68. 
Christian  Herald,  The,  46. 
Colt  Patent  Firearms,  76. 
Congress,  dependent  upon  will 
of  people,  1.32-33; 
has  power  to  dominate  Army 

and  Navy,   141 ; 
not  qualified  to  pass  judgment 

on  Army  and  Navy,  144; 
neglects    to    take    necessary 
precautions     against    war, 
145; 
decides     strength     of    Navy, 

164; 
and  the  General  Board.  168. 
Conscription,  values  of,  136; 
enforced  in  Germany,  136. 


[312] 


INDEX 


Cradock  and  Ton  Spee,  naval 
battle  between,   195. 

Cramb,  Professor  J.  A.,  quota- 
tion from,  41. 

Oramp  Shipbuilding  Works, 
77. 

Cromwell,  90,  163. 

Crozier,  General  William, 
statement  of,   121-22. 

Cyrus  the  Greal^  280. 

Dangerous  Criminal  Class,  AT 
Chapter  XI,  247. 

Dangerous  Preachments,  Chap- 
ter I.  1. 

De  Bange  obturator,  an  Amer- 
ican  invention,    217. 

Dirigibles,  foreign  countries 
possessing,  218-19. 

Disarmament,  repeatedly  a 
failure,  12,  13. 

Diseases,  germs  of,  sown  by 
old  pioneers,  278. 

Dreadnought,   evolved  by  Eng- 
land, 158; 
superiority  of,  recognused  by 
Germany,    France,    Japan, 
158; 
not  appreciated  by  American 

Congress,  158; 
cost  of,  225. 

Du  Pont  Company,  The,  9,  10, 
77. 

Du  Pont,  Francis  G.,  elimi- 
nated danger  in  manufac- 
ture of  gun-cotton,  257, 
258. 

Economic  Club  of  Boston,   18. 

Ego-Fanatic  Good  Intentions 
and  Their  Relation  to 
National  Defense,  Chapter 
X,  235. 

Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  his 
opinion  about  war,  271-72. 

Emery,  Professor  C,  quotation 
from  his  "  Some  Eoenomic 
Aspects  of  War,"  220. 


European   War,   predicted,    13, 
14,  15,  16. 


running 


Falkland       Islands, 
fight  off,  195. 

Fiske,  Admiral,  quoted,   170. 

Formative  strife,  man  as  a 
master,  27,  28,  29. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  135-36. 

Frederick  the  Great,  79,  90. 

French  batteries  outrange  Ger- 
man, 103. 

French  Government,  maker  of 
its  own  gunpowder,  262. 

Fuel-ships,   170,  171. 

"  Future  of  War,  The,"  by  M. 
de  Bloch,  an  argument 
against  possibility  of  war, 
2. 


Gardner,     Congressman,      128, 

161,   169,  216. 
Garrison,  Secretary  of  War,  in- 
terviewed, 100,  101. 
Gathmann  gun,  208. 
General  Board  of  Navy,  organ- 
ized,  160; 
headed    by    General    Dewey, 

160,   163,   164. 
and  Congress,  168; 
report  of,  169. 
Germany,  government  of,   135; 
militarism  of,  139; 
progress    in    industrial    arts 

and  sciences,  139; 
superiority  of,  intellectually, 

140; 
fight   of.    with    England    at 

North  Sea,  195; 
standing  army  of.  225. 
Goethals,  Colonel,  character  of, 

253-54. 
Grood  and  Evil  of  Peace  and  of 
War,    The,    Chapter    XII, 
265. 
Grant,  90. 
Great  Powers,  101,  108. 


[313] 


INDEX 


Gun,     increase     in     size    and 
strength,  184; 

dependence  of,  upon  armored 
protection,  187; 

high-power  naval,  most 
powerful  dynamic  instru- 
ment, 189. 
Gunpowder,  smokeless,  inven- 
tion and  development  of, 
181; 

four    times    as    powerful    as 
black  powder,   182. 
Guns,  field,  necessity  for,   103, 
104; 

helplessness       of       infantry 
without,  107; 

superiority  over  armor-plate, 
196. 

Haeckel,  Ernst,  22. 

Hague  Congresses,  35. 

Haldane,  Lord,  128,  164. 

Hannibal.  90,  162. 

Hannibal's     Balearic    slingers, 
85. 

Hanno,  162. 

Herodotus,  quoted,  281. 

Herr  Krupp,  252. 

Holland  submarine  boats,  77. 

Holy  Alliance,  formed  1815,  56; 
purpose  of,  56,  57; 
actions   of,   57. 

Howitzers,  German  use  of,  103; 
governmental    need    of,    201- 
2;  Germans  reported  mak- 
ers of  huge,   199. 

Huns  and  Vandals  of  present 
day,  31. 


working  of  smokeless  pow- 
der, 259; 

army  rifle,  259; 

smokeless    rifle-powder.    259 ; 

value  to  government,  259-60. 

breech-loading    guns,     steam 
turbine,  submarine  torpedo 
boat,  etc.,  261. 
Isolation,  fatal,  of  U.  S.,  120. 

James,    William,    attitude    to- 
ward war,  300; 
discussed,  301. 
Japan,      strength      increasing, 

100. 
Japanese,   a  far-seeing  people, 
62,  63; 
possessors    of    two    powerful 
battle-cruisers,  188. 
Jefferson,  Charles  Edward,  ad- 
vocates peace,  19,  20,  247. 
JSna,  battleship,  263. 
Jordan    Dr.    David    Starr,    be- 
lieves  in   disarmament,   7; 
says  war  materials  should  be 
made  by  government,  7,  9; 
opposes  war,   11; 
quotations    from    his    "  War 
and  Waste,"  1,  17,  18,  247; 
discussed,  93,  95,  240.  301 ; 
paid    from     Carnegie     Peace 
Foundation,  252. 
Journal    of    the   Royal    United 
Service   Institution,    draw- 
ings  of   Mr.    Maxim   pub- 
lished in,  199. 


Indiana,  the,  156. 

Indulgence,  statistics  of  U.  S., 

225-26. 
International  Tribunal,  39. 
Inventions : 

gun-cotton,  257; 
multi-perforated   grain,    257, 

258; 
process     for     successful     re- 

[314] 


Kaiser  Wilhelm  II,  quoted,  141. 
Kane,  Admiral,  quoted,  116. 
Kearsarge,  the,  193. 
Kitchener,    Lord,    Muldoon    of 

new  English  army,  293. 
Knight,     Admiral    Austin    M., 

quoted,    150-54,    155,    171, 

173-74. 


Lake  Submarine  Torpedo  Boat 
Works,  77. 


INDEX 


La  Liberti,  battleship,  263. 

Language  of  the  Big  Guns, 
Chapter  VII,  181. 

Law,  substitution  of,  for  War, 
31-32; 
inadequacy  of,  34; 
must  be  backed  by  force,  36. 

Lea,  General  Homer,  quota- 
tions from,  33,  63,  64,  68, 
228-29. 

Lee,  90. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  163. 

Lowell,  James  Russell,  quota- 
tion from  his  poem,  44,  45. 

Machinery,    modem,    labor-sav- 
ing,  81,   82,   83; 
a  strong  factor  in  a  nation's 
preparedness  for  war,  87; 
expense  of.   87,  96; 
a  means  of  shortening  length 

of  war,  88; 
assists  the  soldier  in  battle, 

90; 
saves  human  life,  92. 
Mahan,  Admiral,  46; 

quoted,    67. 
Manufactories  of  munitions  of 

war,  unprotected,  77,  78. 
Marat,  a  pacific  moralist,  238. 
Marius,     military     genius     of, 

162. 
Marlborough,  90. 
Marlin  Firearms  Works,  76. 
"  Marseillaise,"  97. 
Martel,  Charles,  90,  162. 
Massachusetts,  the,  156. 
Maxim,    Hudson,    his    proposi- 
tion    of     throwing     large 
charges  of  explosives  from 
big  guns  criticised,  200; 
inventor   of  multi-perforated 
grain,  257,  258. 
Maximite,  first  trial  of,  201 ; 
first     explosive     successfully 
fired   through   armor-plate, 
201. 
Medici,  Catherine  de',  238. 


Mendel^ff,  told  how  to  colloid 

gun-cotton,  257. 
Merrimac,   the,    181,    184,   185, 

192,  193. 
Meyer,  G.  von  L.,  ex-Secretary 
of  Navy,  135,  143,  175; 
quoted,  176-80. 
Militia,  lack  of  batteries  in,  119; 
lack  of  officers  in,   120; 
actual  strength  of,  127. 
Modern    Methods    and   Machin- 
ery of  War,  Chapter  rV,  68. 
Monitor,   Ericsson's,    158,    181, 
192,  193; 
victory  over   Merrimac,   184, 

185; 
inferior    to    modern    battle- 
ships,  193; 
developed    into    super-dread- 
nought by  Europeans,  217; 
builders  of,  inspired  by  spirit 

of  patriotism,  255; 
tardy  acceptance  of,  by  gov- 
ernment, 256. 
Monroe    Doctrine,    proclaimed, 
56; 
actual    formulator  of,   John 

Quincy  Adams,  58; 
inconsistencies  of,  60,  62; 
Greneral  Lea  on,  63-4; 
England's    attitude    toward, 

65; 
an  Anglo-American  compact, 
66. 
Monroe,  President,  declaration 

of,  58-9. 
Montesquieu,   quoted,   281. 
Mukden,  battle  of,  249. 
Mtiller,  Max,  41. 
Multi-perforated  grain,  invented 

by  Mr.  Maxim.  198. 
Murray    Hill    Hotel,   explosion 
in  front  of,  209-10. 

Napoleon,   40,   45,    57,   79,   89, 
118,  162,  163; 
his  "  Que  messieurs  les  assas- 
sins eommencent,"  54. 


[315] 


INDEX 


Navy,   U.   S.,  Admiral  Knight 
on  the,  150-54; 
necessity  for   superiority  in, 

155; 
gradually  slipping  back,  158; 
inadequate.  99.  100; 
constituents     for    a    proper, 

170,  171. 
waste  of  money  appropriated 
for,  175. 
Needs  of  Our  Army,  The,  Chap- 
ter V,  113. 
Needs  of  Our  Navy,  The,  Chap- 
ter VI,  141. 
New  York  Arsenal,  77. 
New  York  Times,  quoted,  144- 
45. 

O'Neil,  Admiral  Charles,  200. 

Oregon,  the,  156. 

Our  Armaments  Not  a  Burden, 
Chapter  IX,  222. 

Our  Inconsistent  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, Chapter  III,  56. 

Parker,  Professor  G.  H.,  quoted, 

290. 
Patent    Office,     inventions    re- 
ceived by,  increasing,  260. 
Peace,  conference,  18; 
praters,  advocates,  and  proph- 
ets of,  1,  2,  4,  5,  6,  7,  108, 
247; 
falseness  of  position  of  paci- 
fiers toward,  109,  110,  235, 
236,    237.    241,    242,    248, 
249,  250,  253,  256,  257,  266; 
Bible  and,  49,  50; 
sophists,    109,  262,  267,  274, 

275; 
tends  more  to  degeneracy  and 
national    decay   than   war, 
280. 
Peter   the   Great,   architect   of 

Russia,  163. 
Picatinny  Arsenal,  76. 
Plato,  on  war,  265. 
Pratt  and  Whitney  Works,  76. 


Projectiles,  power  and  weight 
of,  183; 

improvements  in,  188-89; 

distance  most  efficient  pro- 
tection from,  192; 

larger  ones  lose  less  velocity 
than  smaller,  195-96. 

Queen  Elizabeth,  the,  latest  and 
most  powerful  type  of 
dreadnought,  175. 

Remington  Small  Arms  Works, 
76. 

Report  of  the  Chief  of  Ord- 
nance, 1914,  125. 

Report  of  the  Chief  of  Staff, 
128. 

Roberts,  Lord,  128,  129. 

Robespierre,  a  noted  pacifist, 
238. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  quotations 
from,  3,  5,  43; 
caliber  of,   143. 

Royal  United  Service  Institu- 
tion of  Great  Britain, 
197. 

Ruskin,  John,  on  war,  269-71. 

Russia,  Czar  of,  96. 

Russian  "  Monroe  Doctrine," 
57. 

Russo-Japanese  War,  predicted, 
13. 

Salisbury,  Lord,  quoted,  235. 

Santiago,  battle  of,  195. 

Savage  Arms  Works,  76. 

Scientific     American,      quoted, 
121;  124-25; 
mentioned,  159. 

Scriptures,  quotations  from,  49, 
50,  51,  52. 

Secretary  of  Army  and  Secre- 
tary of  Navy,  141,  142; 
should  not  be  treated  politi- 
cally, 142. 

Secretary  of  War,  141. 

Sheridan,  90. 


[316] 


INDEX 


Sherman,  his  famous  declara- 
tion about  war,  244. 

Smith  and  Wesson  Revolver 
Works,  76. 

Smokeless  cannon-powder,  in- 
vented by  Mr.  Maxim,  197- 
98.  > 

Smokeless  multi-perforated 
powder,  adopted  by  U.  S. 
Grovernment,  218. 

Socialists  take  part  in  war,  97. 

South  American  republics  and 
the  United  States,  60,  61. 

Sparta,  ancient,  power  of  gov- 
ernment in,  136. 

Speed,  of  supreme  importance 
in  naval  engagements,  196- 
97. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  philosopher, 
19,  23,  30,  229,  245. 

Spottsylvania  Court  House, 
battle  of,  146. 

Stead,  William  T.,  recom- 
mends that  British  Par- 
liament build  two  battle- 
ships to  every  one  built  by 
Germany,  18. 

Steel  Trust,  10. 

Stockton,     Mr.     Richard,     Jr., 
quoted,  139,  227; 
his    book    on   "  Peace   Insur- 
ance,"    quotations      from, 
295-99. 

Strong,  Dr.,  President  of  Amer- 
ican Institute  of  Social 
Service,  54,  299. 

Sullivan,  John  L.,  fighter,  19, 
172. 

Sumner,  William  Graham, 
quotation  from,  56. 

Swiss  system  of  military  train- 
ing, 134,  137,  138,  291. 

Talmage,  Rev.  T.  de  Witt,  47. 
Tennyson,  31. 
Torquemada,  238. 
Tupper,  Sir  Charles,  65. 
Twain.  Mark,  24. 


Union  Metallic  Cartridge 
Works,  76. 

United  States  Army,  powder 
works  of,  76. 

United  States  Arsenal,  76. 

United  States  Naval  Torpedo 
Station,  77. 

United  States  Steel  Corpora- 
tion, 9. 

United  States,  a  world-power, 
149,  157. 

Upton,  General  Emory,  pro- 
phetic speech  of,  116. 

Vesuvius,  the,  209. 

Victory,  naval,  dependent  upon 
weight  of  broadsides,  104; 
land,  upon  weight  of  gun- 
fire, 104. 

Vieille,  producer  of  gun-cotton, 
257. 

"Wacht  am  Rhein,"  97. 
War,  ex-President  Taft's  views 
on,  16; 

China's,  16; 

Italian,  with  Tripoli,  16; 

Balkan,  16; 

Mexican,  17; 

European,  17,  103,  232,  233; 

Dr.  Jordan's  views  on,  17-18; 

when  justifiable,  42,  43,  45; 

and  Christianity,  46-55; 

Civil,  85,  86,  87,  90,  302,  305; 

Boer,  103; 

Spanish,  158,  221; 

as  an  art,  172; 

of    1812,    221; 

advantages  of,  270,  271,  272, 
273; 

survival  of  fittest  in,  274; 

mixer  of  races,  274; 

remedy  for?  306-308. 
War     materials,     manufacture 
of,     by     government     and 
private  individuals,   9,    10, 
251,  252; 


[317] 


INDEX 


War  materials,  manufacturers 
of,  actuated  by  honorable 
principles,  255. 
Washington,  George,  opinion  of 

war,  84,  85. 
Winchester     Repeating     Arms 

and  Cartridge  Works,  76. 
Woman's   Peace  Party,   resolu- 
tions of,  239-40; 
mistaken      ideas      of,      241, 

242; 
bravery    of,    if    war    should 

come,  242,  243,  244; 
inconsistency  of,  244. 
Wood,  General  Leonard,  118, 134. 
letter  from,  113-15; 
quotation  from,  129,  130,  131, 
132. 
Wright    Brothers,    encouraged 
abroad,  216; 


Wright    Brothers,    mentioned, 

219. 
Wyndeer,  Sir  William,  235. 

Zalinski  pneumatic  gun,  200. 
Zeppelin,     subject     of     guess- 
work, 204; 

speed  of,  205; 

little  accuracy  in  bomb-drop- 
ping from.  211; 

an  enormous  target,  211; 

more    expensive    than    aero- 
plane, 213; 

use  as  troop-ship  yet  to  be 
proven,  214; 

advantages     over     aeroplane, 
215; 

important   use    in    detection 
of  submarines,  215; 

not  one  in  U.  S.,  218. 


[318] 


PEAISE  FEOM  PATRIOTS 


Extracts  From  a  Few  of  Hundreds  of  Letters  Praising 
HUDSON     MAXIM'S     DEFENSELESS     AMERICA 


Theodore  Roosevelt: 

"  'Defenseless  America'  is  a  capital  book.  I  hope  it 
will  have  the  widest  possible  circulation  throughout 
our  country.  The  prime  duty  for  this  nation  is  to 
prepare  itself  so  that  it  can  protect  itself;  and  this  is 
the  duty  that  you  are  preaching  in  your  admirable 
volume." 

Oscar  S.  Straus: 

"  'Defenseless  America',  coming  from  an  expert,  will 
awaken  interest  in  the  most  practical  method  of  se- 
curing peace  by  safeguarding  our  national  existence. 
I  am  in  fullest  accord  with  your  Conclusion — an  in- 
ternational compact  with  adequate  international  force 
to  maintain  it,  and  give  adequate  guarantee  to  enforce 
its  decrees." 

S.  S.  McClure: 

"A  most  convincing  book  on  an  extraordinarily  im- 
portant subject,  done  in  a  manner  not  only  convincing 
but  irrefutable." 

Rear- Admiral  Charles  D.  Sigsbee: 

"I  should  not  have  said  that  the  subject  could  be 
treated  in  a  way  to  make  it  fascinating  to  the  popular 
reader,  yet  I  now  think  that  is  precisely  what  you 
have  done.    May  the  book  bear  good  fruit!" 

Garrett  P.  Seryiss: 

"  'Defenseless  America*  ought  to  go  into  the  hands 
of  ten  million  American  citizens  before  another  month 
passes.  You  have  done  a  magnificent  thing  for  your 
country!  In  God's  name,  may  she  turn  from  the  silly 
twaddle  of  the  pacifist  wiseacres,  and  save  herself, 
even  on  the  crumbling  verge!" 

[319] 


PRAISE   FROM  PATRIOTS 

George  von  Lengerke  Meyer: 

"It  will  go  a  great  ways  toward  aiding  the  people  of 
this  country  to  realize  the  necessity  of  a  proper  national 
defense  and  a  preparedness  against  war." 

Mrs.  John  A.  Logan: 

"I  wish  that  every  official  in  the  land  could  read  it." 

Dr.  Orison  Swett  Marden: 

"A  colossal,  monumental  treatment  of  the  subject." 

Franklin  D.  Roosevelt: 

"You  have  brought  the  whole  question  of  National 
Defense  to  a  basis  which  can  be  readily  understood  by 
the  average  layman." 

Lieut.  Baron  Hrolf  von  Dewitz: 

"In  'Defenseless  America*  you  explode  a  crater  of 
information  on  the  subject  such  as  has  never  been 
detonated  before." 

Col.  Beverley  W.  Dunn: 

*'I  wish  to  congratulate  you  on  the  conspicuous  and 
valuable  service  that  you  have  rendered  the  i>eople  of 
the  United  States  in  writing  this  book." 

Dr.  E.  C.  Beck: 

"I  want  to  thank  you  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart 
for  this  masterpiece  of  revelation  on  your  part,  this 
opus  which  I  look  upon  in  the  nature  of  an  historical 
event.  May  the  Lord  use  your  book  to  pound  a  little 
sense  into  our  fellow  citizens." 

Rev.  J.  F.  Stillemans: 

"I  am  only  one  of  thousands  who  would  welcome  an 
edition  as  cheap  as  possible  of  'Defenseless  America' 
so  that  we  could  distribute  it  freely." 

Cleveland  Moffett: 

"  'Defenseless  America*  is  great  stuff  and  ought  to 
be  read  by  every  loyal  American." 

W.  Sidney  Jopson: 

"The  direct  results  of  reading  'Defenseless  America' 
were  that  I  went  to  Plattsburg  and  applied  for  ad- 
mission in  our  National  Guard." 

[320] 


PRAISE  FROM  EDITORS 


No  Serious  Book  Has  Ever  Been  More  Highly  Praised  by 
the  Leading  Newspapers  of  America. 


Philadelphia  Public  Ledger: 

"A  book  by  an  expert  in  modem  armament  who 
writes  with  graphic  power  what  he  knows  better  than 
anyone  in  this  country — a  solemn  warning." 

New  York  American: 

"No  book  issued  on  the  subject  marshals  with  equal 
skill  so  great  an  array  of  facts  as  Mr.  Maxim's  volume. 
In  the  present  state  of  national  thought  upon  our  mili- 
tary and  naval  needs  this  book  is  most  valuable." 

Washington  Star: 

"In  origin  and  treatment  this  is  a  surpassing  study 
whose  sheer  information,  apart  from  its  personal  con- 
clusions, is  worth  the  serious  attention,  not  only  of  the 
legislator,  but  of  the  plain  man  behind  the  lawmaker." 

Detroit  Free  Press: 

"Hudson  Maxim  makes  a  call  to  arms  against  war. 
Here  is  an  argument  for  proper  armament  from  a 
man  who  not  only  foretold  the  Japanese  war  and 
named  the  victor,  but  also  prophesied  the  present  con- 
flict and  by  knowledge  and  study  of  world's  conditions 
knows  what  he  is  talking  about  and  makes  his  warn- 
ing timely." 

Los  Angeles  Times: 

"A  powerful  book  on  an  imminent  and  national 
problem  that  every  thinking  citizen  should  read  with 
care." 

Boston  Transcript: 

"Shows  how  it  is  safer  for  a  country  like  the  United' 
States  with  so  large  a  territory  to  defend,  to  prepare, 
so  that  no  foreign  nation  will  be  anxious  to  try  a  strug- 
gle with  us.  The  peace  of  the  United  States  will  then 
rest  on  a  firm  foundation." 

[321] 


PRAISE    FROM   EDITORS 

Baltimore  Sun: 

"The  book  is  brilliantly  written,  with  the  severity  of 
one  who  intensely  desires  to  drive  a  truth  home  and 
with  the  assurance  of  one  who  feels  his  statistics  un- 
assailable and  his  ar^ments  unanswerable.  He  is  sup- 
ported by  many  witnesses  whose  knowledge  must  be 
respected.  There  is  no  smallness  in  the  writer's  at- 
titude. He  appears  to  feel  intensely  his  mission  as 
prophet  and  patriot." 

Cleveland  Plain  Dealer: 

"Here  is  a  man,  frankly  interested  in  war,  who  seems 
utterly  honest  in  his  beliefs.  The  book  contains  an 
expert  elucidation  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  American 
army  and  navy.  It  has  practical  suggestions  for  im- 
provement. It  is,  in  fact,  a  complete  text  book  for  the 
student  of  American  preparedness  or  unpreparedness, 
written,  of  course,  in  a  sincerely  ex  parte  manner." 

Brooklyn  Citizen: 

"The  book  should  be  read  and  studied  carefully  by 
every  lover  of  his  country." 

Lewiston  Journal: 

"  'Defenseless  America'  is  a  ringing  and  insistent 
call,  calculated  to  startle  the  average  American  out  of 
his  peaceful  and  complacent  sense  of  security." 

New  York  Press: 

"The  book  is  interesting — as  interesting  as  a  well- 
written  and  absorbing  novel,  only  it  deals  with  vital 
facts  that  have  a  bearing  on  the  lives  and  fortunes  of 
every  one  in  this  country." 

The  Outlook: 

"We  wish  that  we  could  think  that  those  who  are 
opposed  to  any  preparation  against  war  by  this  country 
would  read  and  consider  this  book  of  Mr.  Hudson 
Maxim." 

Life,  N.  Y.: 

"One  of  the  early  lumber-camp  tales  ended  with  a 
stirring  scene  in  which  a  big,  sandy-haired  hero,  caught 
in  the  path  of  a  bursting  log  jam,  hurls  his  cap  de- 
fiantly into  the  advancing  wall  of  destruction,  just 
before  it  whelms  him.  Such  a  gesture,  futile  yet  mag- 
nificent, is  suggested  by  Hudson  Maxim's  fiery  appeal 
to  the  sleeping  intelligence  and  lulled  self-interest  of 

[322] 


PRAISE    FROM   EDITORS 

his  countr3mien,  'Defenseless  America/  The  book  con- 
tains a  remorseless  marshaling  of  stern  facts,  fused 
into  prophecy  by  a  sort  of  incandescent  logic.  It  is  the 
first  bold  proclaiming  of  the  bitter  'civilization'  truths 
revealed  by  the  vast  disillusionment  of  the  war.  And 
these  are  here  flung,  as  the  author  feels,  into  the  face 
of  approaching  national  disaster." 

The  Scientific  American: 

"The  scope  of  'Defenseless  America*  is  so  all-embrac- 
ing, that  the  author  has  given  a  veritable  mine  of  in- 
formation upon  the  subject  of  war  and  war  material. 
Mr.  Maxim  is  well  qualified  by  his  long  and  successful 
association,  as  a  practical  and  successful  inventor,  with 
the  production  of  the  implements  of  war,  to  write  upon 
the  technical  side  of  the  question ;  and  this  he  does  with 
a  characteristic  force  and  lucidity  which  will  render 
the  subject  perfectly  understandable  and  full  of  fasci- 
nating interest  for  the  average  layman." 

Review  of  Reviews: 

"A  graphic  and  effective  presentation  of  facts  reveal- 
ing the  defenseless  condition  of  this  country  and  indi- 
cating what  must  be  done  to  avert  national  hu- 
miliation." 


"THIS     POWERFUL     BOOK     HAS     JARRED 

AMERICAN    COMPLACENCY    AS    NO 

OTHER    BOOK    HAS    EVER 

DONE  " 


From    The    New    York    American 


One  of  the  most  remarkable  men  of  our  time  has  written 
a  book — and  the  book  is  probably  the  most  startling  docu- 
ment ever  placed  before  the  American  people.  Its  author  is 
Hudson  Maxim,  world-famous  inventor,  writer  on  many  top- 
ics of  public  interest,  member  of  the  Naval  Advisory  Board 
— and  an  American  patriot. 

His  book,  called  "Defenseless  America,"  has  fallen  among 
the  complacent,  the  self-satisfied,  the  careless  and  the  indif- 
ferent like  a  seventeen-inch  shell. 

[323] 


PRAISE    FROM    EDITORS 

It  is  a  pitiless  book — pitiless  in  its  facts,  pitiless  in  its 
logic,  pitiless  in  its  conclusions. 

Mr.  Maxim  knows  what  he  is  writing  about;  he  is  one  of 
the  greatest  authorities  on  military  affairs  in  the  world. 
His  book  has  the  cold  steel  precision  of  truth. 

He  shows  that  all  wars  have  economic  causes,  no  matter 
how  they  are  painted  over  with  sentiment.  And  he  demon- 
strates that  one  of  the  most  urgent  economic  incentives  to 
war  that  has  ever  existed  will  be  the  relative  condition  of 
Europe  and  the  United  States  at  the  close  of  the  Great  War. 

Imagine  the  victors  of  this  gigantic  conflict — Allies  or 
Teutons — impoverished  in  money  and  resources,  with  the 
most  colossal  public  debt  in  the  world's  history  hanging  over 
them,  but  possessing  an  enormous  army  of  trained  veterans 
and  a  world-beating  navy. 

Then,  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  a  nation  that  thinks  it 
"can  whip  all  creation,"  and  acts  on  that  principle — a  hun- 
dred million  over-fed,  money-making  people,  nine-tenths  of 
whom  could  not  load  a  modem  infantry  rifle  if  they  should 
ever  happen  to  see  one;  a  country  of  countless  dollars  pro- 
tected by  obsolete  battleships  and  submarines  that  can  neith- 
er float  nor  sink;  a  nation  rich  but  undefended,  confident  but 
weak,  dictatorial  in  manner  but  powerless  in  action. 

America  sits  on  an  open  powder  barrel.  "Will  the  Victors 
of  the  Great  War  apply  the  match? 

Get  this  stirring  and  tremendous  book,  and  read  what 
will  happen — in  Mr.  Maxim's  own  words.  He  will  tell  you 
where  the  match  will  be  applied,  what  points  in  controversy 
will  bring  on  the  collision — and  then  what  will  take  place 
with  startling  swiftness. 

And— 

He  tells  what  may  be  done,  even  at  this  late  day,  for 
effective  defense. 


As  Mr.  Maxim  has  cut  out  all  royalty,  the  publishers  are 
thereby  enabled  to  furnish  a  special  edition  of  the  book,  of 
which  this  volume  is  a  sample,  at  only  fifty  cents  ,a  copy. 

The  book  may  be  obtained  of  or  ordered  through  any  book- 
store, or  the  publishers,  Hearst's  International  Library  Com- 
pany, 119  West  40th  Street,  New  York,  will  send  it  postage 
paid  to  any  address  for  sixty  cents,  or  ten  copies  in  a  single 
package  for  five  dollars — fifty  cents  a  copy.  The  library 
edition,  superior  paper  and  binding,  may  still  be  had  at  two 
dollars  a  copy. 

[324] 


University  of  Caiifomia 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  It  was  borrowed. 


000  540  478 


